BR τ ΣῊΝ cele tit ® 
rary ΓΟ at hee 
Pet ρον μαννα 4 
plo ἀνυϑιδλώνη ἀνθ «6,0. Ae σφλσόνην ΔΎ AER 
Sr eS rem alan RGA POTEET 
a ee pe tae A igh VF Pe θεαῖς 


ta aera 
ΧΩ 


rab =e LI re 


ne ee ee 
samp gti or 


a hee δ ν 
ee on“ nettast τος ας mah ¢ Phen teh 5 " “ 2 > ae vata . oe Sea pe erase 
efit Se artes tay Ne ee aaa to aoe ose ‘ ire PosK τῶν et ee eS 


ge ee 
Re aon ae 
Nn GyOr ete 5 


Reka eee Soe 


OW 
bgt 

ἰλὺν 
fh 


Ψ we 


ph Pine, 


2 

j “ 
EXPOSITION: # 2 
< 

govt 


Pe PAUL'S EPISTLE 


* 
TO THE 


ROMANS: 


WITH 


EXTRACTS FROM THE EXEGETICAL WORKS OF THE FATHERS 
AND REFORMERS. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN OF 


DR. FRED. AUG. GOTTTREU THOLUCK, 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF HALLE, AND CORRESPONDING 
MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF LONDON. * ; 


BY THE REV. ROBERT MENZIES. 


FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE SECOND REVISED AND CORRECTED EDINBURGH EDITION. 


a 


‘ PHILADELPHIA: 


ΕΘΝ ΑΝ ΒΑ &. 
1844, 


USER YF ᾿ 
ἷ lk a fe. sesh 
q ἔμ 


Bhs 


΄ "| oe 


PREFACK. 


Tue Translator is happy in being able to prefix to this volume 
the following testimonial from Dr. Tholuck, in favour of the general 
design of the Brstican Capiner. 

‘«‘ The attempt to transplant a portion of the theological literature 
of Germany into the soil of England, is doubtless cheering, provided 
that such works shall be selected for translation as are really calcu- 
lated to promote, in the lands where the language of that country is 
spoken, the growth of pure evangelical theology. How glorious it 
would be, if the Protestant churches, of all nations, were thus, like 
sisters, to join hand in hand, in order, with one accord, to advance 
the great work of building up the kingdom of God! To Great Bri- 
tain, in these modern days, we Germans are already under no small 
obligations. The serious practical Christianity of your island, which 
has manifested itself since the beginning of the present century, in 
its numerous philanthropical and religious undertakings, has afforded 
us a model for similar institutions; and in our country also, Bible, 
Missionary, and Tract Societies have sprung up. In like manner, 
the practical theology of England, more especially in the branch of 
biographical literature, has yielded fruits which have had a blessed 
influence among the people of Germany. 

“ΤῸ hence could not be otherwise than pleasing to us, if Britain, 
on her side, were not to despise what we have it in our power to 
offer her in return. And, indeed, it cannot be denied, that while the 
revival of the true faith among us has, as yet, in the domain of prac- 
tical life, operated incomparably less beneficially than in England 
and Scotland, the fruits which it has produced in the field of science 
have been so much the more abundant. The day has been when 
_ Germans were wont to look for instruction from the great men of 


vi PREFACE. 


the English church, such as Pococke, Lightfoot, Usher and Selden; 
and I know not to what cause it is to be ascribed, that, at present, 
in the department of theological literature in England and Scotland, 
few works appear worthy of general attention. In this respect, our 
country may now, perhaps, lend yours a helping hand, in brotherly 
love, according to the precept of the Apostle, Eph. iv. 16, and in 
this manner the bond between the Christian churches of Britain and 
Germany be more closely cemented.” 

It is scarcely to be hoped, however, that these happy effects will 
be speedily realized. ‘The undertaking has many obstacles to en- 


‘counter. One of the most formidable of these is the strong prejudice 


which exists in this country against whatever bears the name of 
German theology, and which disposes so many to view with alarm 
and suspicion, every production that comes from the infected regions 
of rationalism, as necessarily tainted with heresy and error. It 
would be absurd to deny, that, to a certain extent, this feeling is 
well founded. ‘There are numerous theological works, of high repu- 
tion in their own country, which it would be dangerous and unjusti- 
fiable to introduce by translation into ours, as they would certainly 
have the effect of unsettling the faith of the weak, and would only 
serve to engage those, upon whom their influence might be imnocu- 
ous, in an unnecessary contest with error, which is already begin- 
ning to perish in the land in which it grew, and never, it is to be 
hoped, will reach us, except in the history of its refutation. 

At the same time, it can as little be denied, that the danger is 
greatly exaggerated, and the prejudice to which f allude, carried to 
an excessive and unjust extent. ‘The offspring of ignorance, how, 
indeed, can it be otherwise? ‘To moderate and correct it, the best 
means probably is, to make known the real extent of the evil; and 
for this purpose, let the reader accept of the following brief, but 
accurate-sketch of the past and present’state of theology in Germany, 
from the pen of one, than whom, there is certainly no higher author- 
ity upon the subject. 

“The prodigious schism which divides the theologians of our 
German church,” says Tholuck, ‘‘ is not unknown to your country- 
men. ‘The rationalism of Germany is the terror of the greater part , 
of Christendom where the English tongue is spoken; although, if 
I am accurately informed, there is in England, Scotland, and North 
America, a number of persons who are casting longing eyes towards 
German rationalism, as towards a forbidden tree of the knowledge 


PREFACE. Vil 


of good and evil, desirous themselves to taste its fruits, and there- 
with also to make their countrymen wise. Permit me, then, to pre- 
sent you with a brief compendium of this system: The majority of 
the books of the Old Testament do not proceed from the authors to 
whom they are ascribed. Several, such as Daniel, have been, by a 
pious fraud, fathered upon the prophets. Christ and the Apostles 
were fallible men, who, though possessed of many good moral prin- 
ciples, were swayed by gross Jewish superstition. Our accounts of 
the history of Jesus are full of Mido, which a love of the miraculous 
tempted the Jews of the first century to frame. Even the declara- 
tions of Christ himself have not come down to us precisely in the 
form in which he delivered them; his disciples put much into his 
mouth which he never spoke. Besides, the gospels of Matthew and 
John are probably spurious. What Jesus of Nazareth really taught, 
can now no more be known with certainty; but it is unquestionable, 
that his originally simple doctrine has been greatly corrupted by 
Paul, who engrafted upon it the important articles of original sin and 
redemption, which he had borrowed from his own Jewish theology; 
and these came afterwards to be regarded as Christian doctrines, 
although nothing can be more contrary to the understanding. 

‘Such is the relation in which the system stands to Christianity. 
Neither must it be supposed, that these opinions were only in a cur- 
sory manner enunciated or maintained. On the contrary, since the 
year 1770, in which Semler, the true father of this system, but who 
yet was far from going the length of the rationalists of the present 
day, first propounded it, the strenuous industry of the greatest part 
of the theologians, philosophers, historians, and even naturalists of 
Germany, has been engaged in strengthening and establishing it. 
Whoever knows what German industry can do, may form some 
conjecture of the success which has attended his efforts, when once 
enlisted in the cause of infidelity. 

‘*It required the ploughshare of Napoleon’s wars, to break the 
soil, and again prepare the heart of the Germans for the seed of the 
Word of God. At that period, there awoke among us an earnest 
longing after the faith of our fathers, and that in ,several places has 
been followed by a revival of the faith itself. Naturally, however, 
this could not be the case with those who had received a liberal educa- 
tion, without their being able to assign reasons for their belief, and 
justify it scientifically in a conflict with the doubts which had been 


Viii PREFACE. 


raised on every side against it. And thus, after a long period, in the 
early part of which the Theological Faculty of Tubingen alone had 
maintained a determined and scientific resistance against the infidelity 
of the age, there arose, about the year 1817, a fresh endeavour, in 
opposition to the rationalists’ objections, and with a continual refer- 
ence to these in all the departments of the science, to lay again the 
foundations of evangelical theology. On the domain of doctrine, this 
was a comparatively easy task, as that has always been the weak 
side of rationalism, from which the gift of speculation seems to have 
utterly departed. So much the more arduous and stubborn, how- 
ever, has been the struggle on the field of history and criticism, 
where innumerable inquiries required to be prosecuted afresh in a 
new spirit. In that new spirit of the German theology, much, it 
must be confessed, has not as yet been ac¢omplished. In the seve- 
ral branches, we can speak only of a beginning, but, with the help 
of God, this beginning shall surely have a progress.” 

From this account of Dr. Tholuck, it appears, that however gloomy 
the retrospect of the past, a better day has begun to dawn upon the 
church of Germany. The sun of Divine truth, which is destined to 
chase away the midnight horror of neology, has arisen, and already 
sheds her bright and cheering rays. The strongholds of infidelity 
and error have been assailed by a noble band of champions for the 
faith once delivered to the saints. In the arduous struggle in which 
they are engaged, surely they have a claim upon the sympathies and 
favour of all to whom the gospel is dear. With what other feelings 
than complacency and approbation should we view and receive their 
labours? When right in the grand essentials, is it just to treat them 
with fastidious disdain, if on some minor points they have not been 
able to shake off completely the influence of the school in which 
they were nurtured, and diverge some hair’s-breadth perhaps from 
the straight line of orthodoxy among us? | But in many instances 
even this cannot be objected to them. And, as has often been done 
in the former history of the church, they have exemplified how the 
clearest statements, and most powerful defences of Truth, have issued 
from amidst the hottest opposition. 


Duris ut ilex tonsa bipennibus 

Nigree feraci frondis in Algido, 
Per damna, per czdes, ab ipso 
Ducit opes animumque ferro. 


PREFACE. IX 


Men are at the pains to sift opinions which it costs them dear to 
maintain; they seize with so much the firmer grasp that of which they 
see others anxious to rob them; and muster their strength, and select 
their arms, when they have to encounter a formidable foe. 

In this conflict Dr. 'Tholuck is universally allowed to stand fore- 
most among the defenders of ancient orthodoxy; and his Commentary 
upon the Epistle to the Romans is the most important work which 
has as yet proceeded from his pen. ‘The universal approbation it 
has received from the friends of evangelical truth, and the fierce hos- 
tility with which it has been assailed by the rationalists’ party in 
Germany, afford the most satisfactory evidence of its distinguished 
worth. No less decisive is the fact, that three editions of it have 
already been exhausted, and that an anxious demand is now ex- 
pressed for a fourth. Among other testimonies that might be quoted 
to its excellence, it were unfair to withhold the opinion of such a 
distinguished Biblical critic as Professor Stuart of Andover, who, in 
his work lately published on the same Epistle, has not only ex- 
pressed, in the highest terms, his approbation of Dr. Tholuck’s pre- 
vious labours in ihe field, but availed himself, to no small extent, of 
that writer’s views and researches. 

Nor will the effect of these testimonies surely be diminished, by 
the modest estimate which the author himself seems to have formed 
of his own performance, as expressed in the following paragraph, 
which he has desired should be prefixed to the translation. 

“1 wish especially to remark, that the work is to be regarded as 
the production of an earlier period of my life, and as having been 
intended for a particular purpose. 1 composed it in my twenty-fifth 
year, with the special view of commending to the hearts of my coun- 
trymen the doctrine of justification by faith, which,-at the time, I 
perceived to be greatly misunderstood. Other points are hence la- 
boured with less care; and at this time, I believe, that upon the 9th 
chapter I should be able to give some more profound views. Accord- 
ingly, it by no means presents what I now consider as the beau ideal 
of atheological commentary. Iam occupied at present with the pub- 
lication of an extensive commentary upon the Sermon on the Mount,* 
and it is to this I must refer, if your countrymen should wish to read 


* This work Professor Tholuck has kindly offered to transmit in sheets to 
the Translator; and at no distant day it may be expected to forma number of 
the Biblical Cabinet. 

B 


bes ἢ 


x PREFACE. 


a more mature work from my pen. It contains many expositions of 
the doctrines, and might serve to render the dogmatical part of our 
theology more accessible to English divines. At the same time, I 
am persuaded, that none of them would there meet with any thing at 
all contrary to the pure orthodoxy of your church. Even in early 
boyhood infidelity had forced its way into my heart, and at the age 
of twelve I was wont to scoff at Christianity and its truths. Hard 
has been the struggle which I have come through, before attaining 
to assurance of that faith in which I am now blessed. I prove, how- 
ever, in myself, and acknowledge it with praise to the Almighty, that 
the longer I live, the more does serious study, combined with the 
experiences of life, help me to recognize in the Christian doctrine an 
inexhaustible fountain of true knowledge, and serve to strengthen 
the conviction that all the wisdom of this world is but folly when 
compared with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.” 

With regard to his own labours the ‘Translator has only to say, 
that it has been his anxious study to render the meaning of the ori- 
ginal with the utmost possible fidelity; and that while with this view 
he has been scrupulously conscientious, in recasting the thoughts of 
the author, to preserve unchanged their substance, order, and con- 
nection, he has used the common license of an interpreter, to make 
such slight changes in their verbal form, as was necessary to adapt 
them to the genius of our language, and secure symmetry and ca- 
dence to the expression. Some emendations, the result of more ma- 
tured study, he has already received from the author, and hopes that 
he may still receive more. By far the greater part of the quotations 
have been collated with the best editions of the originals. ‘The trans- 
lation of the extracts from the Greek Fathers he has appended, in 
deference more to the suggestion of others than to his own opinion, 
deploring that this should have been deemed necessary by the preva- 
lent neglect af a language which our ancestors were wont to regard 
as one of the eyes of theology. Much pains have been expended, 
both by himself and the printer, upon the accentuation of the Greek, 
and although he dares scarcely hope that a faultless degree of accu- 
racy has been attained, he is persuaded that the blunders are neither 
so numerous nor so gross as greatly to offend even the most fastidious - 
scholarship. 

On his own part, let him be permitted to say, that he would deem 
himself amply compensated for all the toil which this work has 


PREFACE. ΧΙ 


already cost, and may still entail upon him, could he but indulge the 
hope that, like the grapes and pomegranates of Canaan, it may serve 
to his fellow-students as a specimen of the riches and fertility of what 
is, alas to us, almost a ferra incognita,—the ancient literature of the 
church,—allure the steps, though even of but a few of them, into a 
field which the Germans have begun to cultivate afresh, with un- 
speakable benefit to the cause of evangelical truth, and tempt them to 
extend their inquiries beyond the commentaries of Henry and of 
Doddridge, into the rich mines of thought which lie hidden and un- 
explored in the works of Chrysostom, Augustine, St. Bernard, and 
Calvin, in search of some new and quickening element to infuse into 
their ministration of the word. 

On the part of the author, he has to express the wish, in which he 
cordially joins, that in Great Britain also this book may, by the bless- 
ing of God, be made the means of awakening some few to the faith 
of the gospel, and of deepening the blessed impressions of that faith 
in those breasts where it already exists! 


Epinsureu, 31st Aug. 1833. 


% So) ὶ Way we iss 
apace ernie Hm iid πώμω 
pen nm δ δημηνριο aaah) bern pres 
Si haeiesioiendlh pie estar ge a ockonaien ls 


. aoe vaso agi aath spinon ὦ ἀκορ eee 
Syahid” apt Dyanna AAP i 


rie ΠΝ i ᾿ art ’ 
A pont Rae ἘΠ Swen wae 
ve ia ee at way, ἀξὶ 4 4 wake ara ge 
ay ἀπο a θινῶν που θυ tes ivi bry Paes ib 
‘ apsinendie nt ti Seis Midas ΔΩ͂: Τὴ nah pei FOES LARD ge: seh + 
— Ql.enl ἀν λυ} hoa sea ie AOE 
Bali Menotet) abet He meets : . us. 
ἰλύος τή Hid Ke a ἜΝ 8s Ren 
Be se αὐ δ) sii cia uh Bis, Selig ght sp, 
shi ae Haeteitte eed fia aS see hag 
“ ὌΝ Ge t bay 
μα ἐδ’ dain #, hei 4 a 
ee ahah Br Mei SAAT ORIG, Die A ΒΗΜΗΛΝ ως 
ἄμ, petits ἀμ Βὴὴ iy me nS 
ΜΠ Ὑ ΓΝ ν ἀυχέκ Ae SAN SIGH | deus ὑμηδ, ὁ of, ἀ 
pia andl ἊΜ 18 ies fat a een iit Mii 


¢, ikea, Morland 


ve 
- 
ἊΣ 


πολ δυο | be 
MM τῷ ΣΥΝ ΣΥΝ ΔΛ PAS 


UES Ἰὼ att ig NE 


᾿ wg wb is af 


ἐπὶ χουνε Abuce ioe Ἢ μέρ, {i 
me ele neh AEA ἢ 
! ee πρὶ apron 
wht wills πῆ ial 
ts a Mop Wo) 


au to ie eee. agyale, Age, ἍΜ 
ul 


αἱ he 


TRANSLATOR’?S PREFACE. 


Tue Translator, with the most unfeigned regret, begs to apologize 
for the protracted delay of this work, as well as for all the vexatious 
consequences which it has entailed, both upon the Publisher and the 
Public; although he scarcely expects to be excused, except by those 
who have some experience of the cause that has occasioned it, viz. 
the manifold and absorbing avoeations connected with entering upon 
the pastoral charge of a parish. ‘The long interval which has 
elapsed since the publication of the former volume, has afforded him 
an opportunity of hearing the opinion entertained of its merits, and 
he is gratified to find that it has been read and judged of by many, 
with minds unbiassed by prejudice, and whose perceptions were 
neither dimmed nor perverted by the terrors of German Neology. 
Indeed, several of the ablest divines in our Church, so far from ap- 
prehending any baneful consequences from its publication, have 
expressed their conviction, that such a specimen of penetrating expo- 
sition, enriched with the stores of a boundless and sanctified erudi- 
tion, guided by a love of truth the most sincere, and animated by a 
faith so strong, and a piety so ardent, could scarcely fail to exercise 
a beneficial influence upon the theology of the land. 

A different opinion has, however, been expressed. Mr. Haldane 
lately published a work upon the same Epistle, excellent, doubtless, 
in its way, as the gifts and graces of its author would ensure, but 
certainly not calculated, like the present, for the scientific theologian. 
In this work he makes a strange attempt to depreciate Dr. 'Tholuck’s 
character as an expositor, by fastening upon him a charge of want 
of reverence for the Holy Scriptures. The injustice of the imputa- 
tion is only equalled by the futility of the grounds upon which it is 
based. It is not true, that, “‘ respecting the quotation from Habak- 
kuk, Rom. i. 17, Dr. Tholuck charges the Apostle with using vio- 


XiV TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


lence in adapting it to his subject.” No one can attentively read the 
passage alluded to, (Bis. Cas. vol. v. 77,) without perceiving that 
Mr. Haldane has egregiously mistaken and misrepresented Dr. Tho- 
luck’s words, in a manner unworthy his usual acuteness, and not a 
little discreditable to one who assumes the task of expositor. It is, 
moreover, equally false, that Dr. Tholuck “ refers to Acts xxviii. 25, 
as an example of a passage which the Apostle quotes as prediction, 
when it is not prediction.”” An imputation so grave ought not to be 
made except with extreme caution, and upon the surest grounds. It 
becomes otherwise uncharitable and slanderous. In the present 
case, no more gratuitous assertion was ever uttered. So far from 
referring to the text as a passage which the Apostle ““ quotes as pre- 
diction,” Dr. Tholuck, without delivering any opinion as to what 
may be its character elsewhere, refers to it as a passage, which, on 
the particular occasion in question, is certainly not quoted as pre- 
diction; a fact of which a single glance will be sufficient to convince 
the reader. 

A few notes have been introduced, containing the Author’s maturer 
views upon certain verses of the 9th chapter. ‘They appeared in 
Nos. 56 and 57 of the Litterarischer Anzeiger, 1834, where Dr. 
Tholuck reviews an able exposition of Rom. ix., by J. T. Beck, 
Stuttgard, 1833, and refer to the grand mystery of predestination, on 
which his sentiments have certainly not been learned jn the school 
of Calvin. This is the only part of the work, with respect to which 
the Translator feels it incumbent upon him to put the young theolo- 
gian upon his guard. 


Manse or Hoppam, 
Sept. 1836. 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


In presenting this first American edition of Tholuck on the 
Romans to the religious public, the publishers deem it proper simply 
to state, that they have endeavoured to furnish an accurate reprint 
of the Edinburgh edition. It is hoped that the intrinsic merit of the 
work will insure for it a kind reception with all Biblical students and 
lovers of sound learning, whatever may be the distinctive peculiari- 
ties of their theological views or ecclesiastical institutions. 

Should this work be favourably received, it is the design of the 
publishers that it shall be followed shortly by Tholuck’s celebrated 
work on the Hebrews, and other works from the German Divines, 


both English and original translations. 


PUBLISHERS. 
March 12, 1844. 


ἥ v7 ΤΥ as ν᾽ 79 
Pi ' ge win A Ν ‘ εν ; i 
i ; on ‘" ; 
Α Τ va 
δ a 4 τ ᾿ , f 
Ἂ ν᾽ ΄ ay ated = bs, tee 
Ε ἢ" i 
i ν᾽ » ἢ , τὰς ὅν ᾽ 
; 1 ‘4 ah ν , 
° ‘ ἈΝ ὦ 
i ; ; I 
ἐν ΡΝ satay 
yee τς ae re Seo 
\ tyr 2 - ἐπ + χω τὰ ἡ ‘ 
: ΟΝ 
ben i oa oft 
a" nul ‘ Ἰ Υ ἡ ᾿ a 
: . 
“ τ re " γι , 
ρον and a aoe 
X Ld Le 
ἃ ἥν: 
; ὙΦ. ἡ ᾿ vi 
ba ed 
ἢ 
> 
| = 
ὑ ὌΝ ΣΝ 
je yt 
A 
i Ξ 
i 


= 


ἜΜ Ranta pat 


non wail 


a 


Shy poe Ne Ὁ 
pn si resi dive 
Vay ee: 


INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER IT. 


OF THE CHURCH AT ROME. 


SECTION I. 
OF ITS FOUNDATION. 


Accorpine to the opinion of the Roman Catholics, the first 
Christian Church at Rome was established by St. Peter. This 
Apostle, it is maintained, came to Rome in the second year of the 
Emperor Claudius, (the forty-third after Christ,) where he contended 
with Simon Magus, and after filling the office of Bishop for twenty- 
five years, at last suffered martyrdom. ‘These assertions, however, 
contain much that cannot be supported, as several members of the 
Romish Church, viz. Valesius, Antonius Pagi, and Stephen Baluz 
have themselves shown. Among Protestants their incorrectness has 
been demonstrated, particularly by Samuel Basnage, in the Annales 
Politico-Ecclesiastice, p. 522, sqq. Some Protestants, however, 
have gone too far on the opposite side. Salmasius, and Spanheim, 
(De temeré credita Petri in urbem Roman profectione, Opp. T. II. p. 
331,) contends that Peter never was in Rome. That the Apostle, 
however, did visit that city, and that it was even the scene of his 
death, cannot, with due regard to historical evidence, be doubted. 
Origen, who is distinguished for his critical judgment, and whose 
authority has peculiar weight, bears testimony to the fact, (Euseb. 
Hist. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 3.) It is also attested by the fragment of a 
letter of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in the year P. C. 117, pre- 
served in the same work, (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. 11. 6. 25.) Lastly, 
it is confirmed by the presbyter Caius, who, at the commencement 
of the third century, saw in that city the graves of Peter and Paul, 
(Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 25.) Although, however, the fact be 
admitted, the Apostle’s presence at Rome must by no means be 
placed anterior to the composition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 
This is evident from the following reasons: Ist. In Acts xii. 4, we 
read that Peter was thrown into prison by Agrippa, in the last year 
of his reign. Now that year was the fourth of the reign of Claudius. 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


It is, consequently, impossible that Peter could have visited Rome in 
the second year of Claudius. This is admitted even by Valesius, 
(Annot. ad Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. 6. 16, p. 30.) 2d. According 
to-Acts xv. 7, Peter attended the Synod of the Apostles at Jerusalem 
in the ninth year of Claudius. In the year after he travelled from 
thence to Antioch. 3d. Paul came in the seventh year of Nero to 
Rome, and there called together the Jews, without any notice being 
taken of Peter. 4th. Amidst the many salutations at the end of the 
Epistle, would Paul have forgotten Peter if he had been at Rome? 
5th. From St. Paul’s delicacy of feeling, we may conclude with 
certainty, that he would not have used the liberty of writing to the 
disciples of another Apostle, in the tone of this Epistle. 6th. If 
Peter had at so early a period quitted the East, where he behoved to 
announce the Gospel to the Jews, he would have been unfaithful to 
his commission. 

A variety of considerations renders it much more probable, that 
the Gospel was first established at Rome by disciples of Paul. Paul, 
must have stood in some sort of intimate connection with the Roman 
Church, before he would have addressed himself with such emphasis 
and concern to them. He evinces a perfect acquaintance with their 
condition, and the simplest manner of explaining this circumstance 
is to suppose, that his own scholars, as overseers of the church, fur- 
nished him with intelligence respecting it. ‘The greetings which he 
sends, are for the most part to his fellow workers or disciples, to 
Epenetus, c. xvi., v.5, to Aquila and Priscilla, v. 8, to Andronicus 
and Julius, v. 7. ‘These persons, it is probable, were teachers at 
Rome. It was in the house of Aquila and Priscilla that the Church 
assembled. In saying this, however, we do not mean to contend, 
that these disciples of Paul brought the first seeds of the Gospel to 
Rome. It is more likely, that they merely contributed to a wider 
diffusion of it, and more especially to the formation of a church. The 
first seeds may have been brought by the Jewish residents at Rome, 
who were present in Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost, Acts ii. 10, 
or by the Hebrew Christians, who, after the martyrdom of Stephen, 
were scattered abroad, Acts viii. 1, or, perhaps, by the general con- 
course of strangers, that was ever streaming from the provinces to 
the capital. Bertold (Kinl. B. vi. 5. 3271) is inclined to believe, that 
even during the lifetime of our Saviour, intelligence of his doctrine 
had been conveyed to Rome, a supposition which is at least not in- 
credible, 


SECTION II. 


OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 


Iv was composed, partly of Hebrews, partly of Heathen Chris- 
tians, c. i, 18; xv. 15,16. ‘The former are particularly addressed 


INTRODUCTION. 11 


6. iv. 1, vii. 1, and the latter c. xi. 18. Generally, indeed, the rea- 
soning of the Apostle applies to the mutual relations of a community 
made up of Jews and Gentiles. ‘The Jews at Rome were very nu- 
merous. Josephus, in his Antiq. 1. xvii. c. 11. § 1. relates, that on 
one occasion, in the time of Augustus, 8000 Jews, resident in Rome, 
joined themselves to anembassy. ‘The most of them were prisoners 
of war, taken by Pompey, to whom Augustus had assigned a par- 
ticular quarter of the city beyond the Tiber (Philo Leg. ad Caium, 
p- 1014, ed. Frkf.) Again, that numbers of the Gentiles in the 
capital were converted to Christianity, might be inferred, if nothing 
else led to the conclusion, from the wide spread corruption of man- 
ners, and the unsatisfying nature of Paganism, which was unable to 
appease the wants of serious minds. Seneca informs us, (de Superst. 
Fragm. in Aug. de civ. dei, 1. 7. c. 11.) that such numbers of Ro- 
mans had embraced the Jewish (by which he also means the Chris- 
tian) religion, ‘‘ ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit. Victi victoribus 
leges dederunt.”” And Juvenal also bitterly scoffs at Judaising Ro- 
mans, (Sat. 14, v. 100.) It was natural that the same desire for a 
purer and more positive mode of divine worship, which made Gen- 
tiles become proselytes to Judaism, should induce them also to 
embrace Christianity; and, among the Gentile Christians at Rome, 
there were, probably, many who had been before Proselyti porte. 
That numerous Gentiles were, in fact, converted to Christianity, we 
have the testimony of Tacitus, (Annal. 1. xiv. c. 45,) ‘* Repressaque 
in presens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, non modo per 
Judzam, sed per urbem etiam.” 


SECTION III. 
OF THE TIME AT WHICH THE CHURCH AT ROME WAS FOUNDED. 


A modern scholar, Tobler (‘Theologische Aufsitze Zurich, 1796, 
Zweiter Aufs.) has made an attempt to prove from Acts xxviii. 17, 
that when Paul arrived at Rome, there did not as yet exist any 
Christian church there. According to the account given in the pas- 
sage referred to, the Apostle, upon his arrival, calls the Jews together, 
and discourses to them of Christianity. At the 22d verse, they re- 
ply, that they had indeed heard of that sect, which was every where 
spoken of, and that they wished to learn his opinion with respect to 
it. From this the inference might be drawn, that there was then no 
Christian church in the city, for, otherwise, these Jews could not 
have been utterly unacquainted with the Christian doctrine. Τί, 
however, no Christian community had existed, Paul could not pos- 
sibly have written his Epistle to them. That it was not written till 
after his imprisonment there, is in the highest degree improbable. 
Besides, it is expressly said, Acts xxviii. 15, that the brethren from 
Rome came to meet Paul, and these cannot, without violence, be sup- 


12 INTRODUCTION. 


posed to have been only stranger Christians then accidentally present 
in the city. It would hence appear, that the Jews, in the passage 
referred to, merely pretended that they knew nothing of the Chris- 
tians. With respect to the date of the establishment of this church, 
we should gain a more definite point to settle it, could it but be ascer- 
tained whether Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians, at the 
time they were banished from the city by the decree of the Emperor 
Claudius, and when Paul became connected with them at Corinth, 
Acts, 6. xviii., or whether it was he who first taught them Christianity. 
In the former case, we should have to adopt the supposition, that not 
only Jews, but likewise Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome; 
and thus, that so soon as the year forty-eight, the date of the Claudian 
edict, there were a considerable number of that nation in the city who 
had embraced the gospel. We have already observed, (sect. 1,) how 
probable it is that the first seeds of Christianity were sown in Rome 
at a still earlier period. That for a considerable time prior to the 
date of our Epistle, the church had already existed as a Christian 
church, may be concluded from the circumstance that, as the Apostle 
mentions, the fame of their graces had been universally spread abroad, 
c. i. 8. xv. 23, and that he had several times formed the resolution 
of going to see them. On this subject, see the Treatise of T. F. 
Flatt, Nonnulla ad questionem de tempore quo Pauli ad Rom. Ep. 
seripta sit, Tub. 1798, in Pott Sylloge Comm. T. ii. Only the au- 
thor confines himself chiefly to the refutation of ‘Tobler. 


CHAPTER II. 


OF THE TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS 
WRITTEN. 


TneseE particulars may be ascertained with considerable certainty 
from Rom. xv. 25—30, as Theodoret also notices in his Introduction. 
The plan which the Apostle there lays down for his journey, coin- 
cides with that given, Acts xix. 21, by St. Luke. He intimates, 
that, after gathering the contributions in Achaia, his intention was to 
go to Jerusalem, and from thence to proceed to Rome. Now, from 
this it may be gathered, that the Epistle was written at the close of 
the Apostle’s second residence at Corinth, according to Usher and 
Eichhorn in the year sixty, according to Pearson, Dupin and Lange, 
in the year fifty-seven; for Corinth, as the capital city of Achaia, was 
the place where the collection was made. ‘That the Epistle was - 
written at this place, is likewise clear from the following cireum- 
stances. It was sent by Phebe, a deaconess of the Church of Cen- 
chrea, a suburb of the city of Corinth, c. xvi. 1. ‘The Apostle sends 
a greeting from Gaius, whom he designates, ‘‘ mine host, and of the 


INTRODUCTION. 13 


whole Church,” xvi. 23, and Gaius was by birth a Corinthian, whom 
he had himself baptized. He likewise sends a salutation from Eras- 
tus and Timothy, the former of whom he entitles ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πό- 
news, C. Vi. 21 and 23. ‘The πόλις here meant must be the city in 
which Paul was at the time residing, and as nothing further is said 
to characterize it, it must have been a city of some note. Moreover, 
we find that three years afterwards, Erastus is still at Corinth, 2 
Tim. iv. 20. In fine, Corinth is marked out as the place of compo- 
sition, by this circumstance, that at the time the Epistle was de- 
spatched, Aquila and Priscilla were staying at Rome. For at the 
date of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which Paul wrote towards 
the termination of his abode at Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla were 
still with him. From Ephesus the Apostle journeyed to Macedonia 
and Achaia, and in the interval, these his two fellow-workers might 
have again returned from that city to Rome. 


CHAPTER III. 


OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE EPISTLE. 


Some Roman Catholic interpreters of an older date, Bellarmine 
and Salmeron, hold that the Epistle was originally written in Latin. 
Bolton and Bertholdt maintain that the Apostle wrote all his letters, 
and this among the rest, in Aramaic. Both assertions, however, are 
destitute of internal, as well as external evidence. Paul, as a native 
of ‘Tarsus, must have learned the Greek tongue, and his having used 
that tongue in a letter to the Roman Church, which was composed 
of heathens who spoke Latin, and countrymen of his own, ought not 
to surprise us, when we take into consideration the well known 
facts, that Jews resident in foreign countries universally made use of 
Greek as the language of ordinary intercourse, and that almost all 
Romans who had received any tincture of education, spoke it in 
addition to their mother tongue. 

The following authorities are vouchers for the latter fact: — 

Tacitus de Orat. c. 29. ‘*Nune natus infans delegatur Grace 
ancillz.”’ 


Ovid De Arte Amor. 1. ii. v. 121. 


Nec levis ingenuas pectus coluisse per artes 
Cura sit, et linguas edidicisse duas. 


Mart. Epig. 1. xiv. Ep. 58. 


Rusticus es, nescis quid Greco nomine dicor, 
Spuma vocor nitri, dicor et aphronitum. 


14 INTRODUCTION. 
Lastly, what Juvenal says of the Roman ladies, Sat. vi. v. 184. 


Se non putat ulla 
Formosam, ni que de Tusca Grecula facta est. 
Hoc sermone pavent, hoc iram, gaudia, curas, 
Hoc cuncta eflundunt animi secreta. Quid ultra? 


Compare also Suet. Vita Claudii, ο. 4. 


pgle, ΡΕΜΜῺΝ 0. ἘΝ Ve 
STYLE AND DICTION OF THE EPISTLE. 


As every man has a peculiar cast of countenance, so has he also 
a peculiar style, and the latter, like the former, bears the impress of 
his mind. ‘To describe the style of an author, is hence, to deseribe 
his character, especially in those cases, Ubi oratio indicat se in pec- 
tore, non in ore, nasci. ‘The Apostle Paul appears to us as a man 
of a highly serious and impassioned mind, who devotes all his ener- 
gies to the object that engages him for the time, and yet feels that 
these are not sufficient. ‘This is plainly indicated by his style. It 
is forcible, brief, rapid, abounding in sentences, in which he seems 
to be always labouring for some new expression still stronger than 
the preceding, and the words press like waves upon each other. But 
besides the natural qualities of the man, his education must likewise 
be taken into account. He was brought up in a Rabbinical school. 
The method of instruction pursued in these seminaries may, even 
yet, be learned with some certainty, from the older portions of the 
Mischna, and the Hierosolymitan Gemara. In the style of the Tal- 
mudists, the most striking features are,—abruptness, harsh transi- 
tions, brief allusions, sometimes a mixture, and sometimes an un- 
natural disruption of cognate ideas, frequently formal argumentation 
on particulars of no importance, and abundant interweaving of Old 
Testament quotations in the body of the discourse. Although, un- 
doubtedly, the Christian spirit, that dwelt in the Apostle, kept him 
from the extremes into which, by the nature of his education, he 
might otherwise have been betrayed, still it is impossible not to per- 
ceive certain traces of its influence. 

From what has been said, it may easily be inferred, that the style 
of the Apostle presents difficulties, of which we find that all com-: 
mentators, from Origen to Erasmus, and from Luther to the present 
day, have loudly complained. Sometimes a dearth of words, and 
abruptness of expression, and sometimes the ambiguity of particular 
terms, make it difficult to seize the meaning; while, on the other 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


hand, the same effect is likewise occasioned by a perplexed involution 
of the periods—by numerous co-ordinate and subordinate clauses— 
by the different predicates applied to the same thing, and the various 
points of view from which the author contemplates his subject. Not 
unfrequently, also, his peculiar mode of proof obscures the sense, 
for he often lays a weight upon particular words and phrases, such 
as the reader is not at once prepared to admit. An indispensable 
requisite for the exposition of such a writer is, that the expositor 
should be familiar with the state of mind and the tone of feeling from 
which the composition emanated. It is only when possessed of this 
qualification, that it will be possible for him to find within his own 
mind the unity and concatenation of the Apostle’s impetuous, and, as 
it will otherwise appear, desultory train of thought, and that he will 
be able to explain the transitions. We shall only further quote two 
fine passages from the ancient Fathers, on the eloquence of Paul. 
Hieronimus (Ep. 48 ad Pammachiam, c. 13. ed. Vall) thus expresses 
himself: ‘*Paulum proferam, quem quotiescunque lego, video mihi 
non verba audire sed tonitrua. Videntur quidem verba simplicia, et 
quasi innocentis hominis et rusticani, et qui nec facere nec declinare 
noverit insidias; sed quocunque respexeris fulmina sunt. Heret in 
causa; capit omne quod tetigerit; tergum vertit ut superet; fugam 
simulat ut occidat.”” Chrysostom De Sacerdotio, l. iv.c.7. “ Like 
a wall of adamant, his writings form a bulwark around all the 
churches of the world, while himself, as some mighty champion, 
stands even now in the midst, casting down every high thing that 
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into cap- 
tivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 


CHAPTER V. 


ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Tuis has never been questioned, except upon certain doctrinal 
grounds, by some heretical sects of antiquity, the Ebionites, Encrat- 
ites and Cerinthians. (Ireneus, ad Her. ]. i. 6. 26. Epiph. Her. 
xxx. Heron. in Matth. c. 18, v. 2.) Their doubts are, therefore, 
wholly destitute of critical weight. Even at so early a period as that 
of the Apostolical Fathers, repeated quotations are made from this 
Epistle. ‘Thus Polycarp ad Philipp. c. 6, cites the 17th verse of 
the twelfth chapter; and Clemens Romanus in his First Epist. ad 
Corinth. c. 35, the 32d verse of the first; Comp. De Wette, Einl. 5. 
140. ‘Testimonies for its authenticity, founded on the historical 
allusions of the Epistle, are to be found in Paley’s Hore Pauline. 


16 INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER VI. 


OCCASION, DESIGN, CONTENTS, AND INTERNAL DISPOSITION 
OF THE EPISTLE. 


SECTION I. 


OF THE OCCASION AND DESIGN OF IT. 


Severat modern Theologians assume this Epistle to have arisen 
out of circumstances, and to have been designed for ends connected 
with the special relations of the Roman Church. Ejichhorn’s opinion, 
(Einleitung in N. T. B. iii. s. 214, ff.) is as follows: ‘‘A partiality 
for new religions, and, in general, for whatever was strange, had se- 
duced many among the Romans to connect themselves with the 
Jewish synagogues. When, however, the doctrine of Paul was 
brought to Rome, and the proselytes were presented with an oppor- 
tunity of obtaining deliverance from the burdensome ceremonial 
service, they embraced that doctrine with double alacrity. The 
Jews, on the other hand, indignant at losing their proselytes, con- 
tended, in opposition, that Judaism was sufficient for salvation. Paul 
had received intelligence that the converts were beginning to waver, 
and accordingly he endeavoured by this Epistile to confirm them.” 
Hug assigns to it a different purpose and occasion. (Einl. ins. N.'T. 
B. ii. s. 361, 2te Ausgabe.) ‘* Under Claudius it was only the Jewish 
Christians who were expelled from the city; those of Gentile origin 
were permitted to remain. Upon the return of the former, in the 
reign of Nero, there arose in the church many misunderstandings 
and schisms, and to settle these is the design of the Apostle.” As 
to the hypothesis of Eichhorn, it is founded upon a view common 
to a great many of the commentators, viz. that Paul, in this Epistle, 
contends solely against Judaism. ‘The view, however, is much too 
restricted. In chapter 1st and 2d the Apostle likewise speaks with 
great emphasis against the pretensions of the heathen. Hence Eras- 
mus has observed with much truth, ‘* Miro consilio singularis artifex 
sermonem temperat inter Judzos et Gentes, dum studet omnes om- 
nibus modis ad Christum pellicere, neque vult, si fieri possit, quem- 
quam omnino mortalium perire suo duci, cui militabat. Itaque nune 
hos objurgat, nunc illos, nunc rursus erigit, ac sublevat. Gentium 
supercilium deprimit, ostendens nihil illos profuisse, neque nature 
legem, neque philosophiam, cujus professione tumebant, quominus 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


in omne scelerum dedecus prolaberentur. Rursus Judzorum arrogan- 
tiam coercet, qui legis fiducia perdidissent id, quod erat totius legis ca- 
put, fidem in Christum Jesum.—Et ad eum modum, detracto utrisque 
supercilio, adempta utrisque fiducia, omnes equat in negotio fidei Evan- 
gelice.’’ Augustine (Inchoata Expositio, § 1.) describes ina similar way 
the procedure of Paul in this Epistle, and then concludes,—‘‘ auferens 
utrisque omnem superbiam meritorum, et justificandos utrosque per 
disciplinam humilitatis associans.”” ‘The whole disposition of the 
letter shows, that the author had a much more comprehensive design 
than merely to demonstrate, in a conflict with its teachers, the in- 
sufficiency of Judaism. ‘There is much more likelihood in the sup- 
position of Hug, that the Apostle seeks to reconcile the differences 
between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and animadvert upon the 
arrogant pretensions which they respectively made. In fact, simi- 
lar discords between Hebrew and Heathen-converts happened in 
most churches during the infancy of Christianity. And this view, 
accordingly, in itself so natural, is the one which the majority both 
of ancient and modern interpreters of the Epistle have embraced. 
There is not the same ground, however, for acquiescing in the par- 
ticular conjecture of Hug, that it was the return of the Jewish Chris- 
tians to the capital in the reign of Nero, which gave rise to the dis- 
putes in question, and hence, indirectly to the Epistle. In the first 
place, it is by no means probable, that, at the banishment of the 
Jews (among whom Christians seem to have been included,) the 
Gentile converts were spared. We do not find under any of the 
persecutions, that these experienced milder treatment than their. 
brethren. On the contrary, they must have appeared peculiarly 
criminal, as having renounced the religion of the state for a religio 
illicita. The ground of persecution, in every case, was the refusal 
to join in the worship and sacrifices of the pagan gods, and in this 
respect, all Christians, whether of Jewish or heathen origin, were on 
a level. Moreover, many of the former, by becoming proselytes, in 
the first instance, to Judaism, had already exposed themselves to 
suspicion. And even although, in the face of all this, we were to 
admit that the Jewish Christians alone were expelled from the city, 
and that they afterwards returned, still it would not be natural to 
seek, in that circumstance, the occasion of the discord between them 
and their Gentile brethren, considering that such misunderstandings 
were wont to arise far less from the external circumstances in which 
the parties were placed, than from the doctrinal views which they 
respectively entertained; and hence, as we find, they universally 
more or less occurred. ‘To which, it must be added, that the argu- 
mentation of Paul is much less calculated to refute Jew and Gentile 
Christians, than to display the insufficiency of Paganism and Judaism. 
Nor is there, moreover, any competent reason for supposing that 
Paul only endeavours in this Epistle to compose local differences. 
What he says regarding the local relations of those to whom he 
wrote, is limited to the admonitory part at the end. ‘The whole 
3 


18 INTRODUCTION. 


disposition of the first doctrinal section rather announces the more 
comprehensive design of exhibiting generally the importance of the 
Christian doctrine, and of demonstrating that it alone can do (what 
is beyond the power both of the Jewish and Pagan religion,) satisfy 
the wants of human nature. As will appear from the summary of 
the matter to be exhibited in the following Section, the Epistle is 
written according to a grand and systematic plan, and, more than any 
other book of Scripture, may be styled a doctrinal treatise. This 
general view of its design, has been embraced by the reformers, Lu- 
ther, Calvin, Melancthon, and Bucer, and is stated in the prefaces 
which they severally wrote for it; and among the moderns, particu- 
larly by Michaelis, in his introduction. 

But if the design of the Epistle is thus universal, and not founded 
on the peculiar circumstances of the Roman Church, the question 
arises, what could have induced Paul to send to them such a general 
and comprehensive discussion upon Christianity? He himself states, 
what his motive was, Rom. xv. 15. He had been called to bea 
minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, and wished to impart some 
blessing to the Romans among the rest. At the commencement of 
the letter, c. i. 15. he expresses no less strongly his desire to teach 
Christianity at Rome by word of mouth. And, indeed, to the great 
Apostle of the heathen, what else could it be but highly desirable to 
make the gospel resound in the capital, above all other places in the 
world. When we also take into consideration, that the chureh 
there was, probably, conducted,—had even, perhaps, been originally 
founded,—by Paul’s scholars, and that they gave him intelligence of 
its state, it appears a very natural thing, indeed, that he should have 
addressed to them a letter. As he had few local relations, however, 
with which to connect his remarks, and yet felt impelled by his affec- 
tion to write at some length, he takes up an explication of the entire 
scheme projected by the Divine Being for the salvation of mankind, 
according as it is revealed to us in the gospel; and afterwards, as an 
appendage to this, which is the larger portion of the letter, proceeds 
to the peculiar circumstances of the church, in as far as they were 
known to him. 


SECTION II. 
CONTENTS AND INWARD DISPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE. 


In contemplating the Epistle, the last portion of it, from chapter 
xii. to the end, seems to stand apart from the preceding, inasmuch 
as, without being connected by any definite bond of union, it consists 
in a collection of multifarious admonitory lessons. In the first and 
doctrinal part again may be distinguished two larger sections. ‘The 
first eight chapters are purely doctrinal, to which the following three 
form an historical and closely connected corollary. The theme of 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


the doctrinal part is properly to be found in the 10th verse, which is 
skilfully woven into the exordium, and is resumed afresh, ch. iii. 21, 
22. The course which the Apostle takes is as follows: ‘+The gos- 
pel is a message of salvation—of such a message of salvation all men 
stand in need; because all are sinners. ‘The heathen are so, because 
they have allowed the knowledge of God, which they bring into the 
world, to be suppressed, by their criminal lusts, and, in consequence 
thereof, have dishonoured God, and, as the reflex influence of their 
unworthy knowledge of God, have abandoned themselves the more 
as a prey to sin, c. i. The Jews are equally sinners, ncy, favoured 
as they were with a clearer knowledge, and more peculiar tokens of 
the Divine favour, they are doubly criminal, chap. ii. True it is, 
that the Jews possess certain privileges above the heathen, in so far 
as God has furnished them more amply with the means of salvation. 
Contemplated, however, per se, they stand precisely on the same 
level, and are in an equal degree, incapable of showing in their works 
that they have satisfied and fulfilled the law. From this it is evident 
how absolutely necessary the Gospel scheme of salvation is; inas- 
much as it is a scheme which insures justification to man without 
proportioning it to his own righteousness by works, chap. 111. ‘This 
way of justification was known under the Old Testament. In the 
case of Abraham and David we have examples of the same kind of 
righteousness as the gospel inculcates, chap. iv. The fruits of this 
divine scheme of justification are peace and joy, nor does the latter 
solely spring from the hope of future felicity, but is experienced even 
in this present life. How great and adorable appears from hence the 
entire economy of our salvation! For as by the first man we lost all, 
so by the second Head of our race has all been retrieved, ὁ. v. 
Henceforth, however, it is also necessary, that with us holiness 
should be the consequence of forgiveness—not that holiness indeed, 
which consists in a mere servile observance of the law, but holiness 
as a natural fruit of the sense of pardon, now become vital and 
operative within us, chap. vi. ‘The law for us is as good as dead, 
and we are also as good as dead with respect to the law. For the 
course which spiritual life pursues, is as follows: At first man is 
conscious of no law, and deems himself happy amidst his sins. He 
then comes to the knowledge of the law, seeks to obey it, strains and 
struggles, but still succumbs, exhausted at every fresh trial. It is 
only through Christ that he acquires the capability of fulfilling its 
requirements, which depends upon a new principle of life implanted 
within him, through faith in the free grace which Christ offers for 
our acceptance, chap. vii. Hence a regenerated man is able to 
accomplish what exceeds the power of any other. And the final 
issue of his life is glory. Whatever he may have to suffer here be- 
low, an eternal unspeakable weight of glory is in store for him, and 
of that nothing on this earth can deprive him, chap. villi. How much 
should I rejoice to know, that my brethren, according to the flesh, 
were brought to a participation of the blessings of the glorious Gos- 


20 INTRODUCTION. 


pel. But their stubborn refusal to believe on Christ, shuts up for 
them the way to it; aud they imagine they may safely trust to a 
righteousness by works. And yet it belonged to God, as absolute 
Sovereign, to propose such ways of justification as he thinks fit, and 
so as he now does, in the exercise of his good pleasure, to set up 
faith in Christ as the one only condition of salvation, chap. ix. If 
possessed of faith, therefore, Israel would be accepted, chap. x. But 
although that be not the case for the present, this mighty nation of 
the theocracy is not rejected forever. In the first instance, indeed, 
the heathen shall be converted. But the day is also coming when 
Israel shall be fully brought in; and thus it shall be manifested to the 
glory of God, that by ways the most diverse, he knows how to guide 
all, who were once involved in sin, to a participation in his great 
scheme of salvation,”’ c. xi. Such is the tenor of the Epistle. 


CHAPTER VII. 


OF THE OUTWARD DISPOSITION OF THE ADMONITORY PART 
OF THE EPISTLE. 


We have here to notice two hypotheses, which, though equally 
arbitrary, must not be passed over in silence. Heumann contends, 
that chap. xii.—xv. is a separate letter, written at a subsequent date, 
and that chap. xvi. is a postscript to chap. xi. He supposes that 
Paul had written chaps. i.—xi. with chap. xvi., and prepared it for 
Phebe’s departure. But that that event being for a while retarded, he 
received letters from Rome during the interval, which informed him 
that a dead faith would be less burdensome than works to the Chris- 
tians there. Hence the motive which led the Apostle to add this 
appendage upon the duties, to the preceding part of his Epistle upon 
the doctrines. ‘This account, however, is untenable. For although 
it cannot be denied, that a new section begins with chap. xii. the 
subject of which is entirely different from what goes before, it does 
not by any means stand in real opposition to it. Our Apostle seems 
not to have made any very broad distinction between doctrine and 
morals. His doctrine is uniformly a vital, fervid, breathing, moral 
discourse. Besides, the manner in which, chap. xii. 1, he connects 
the admonitory with the previous part of the Epistle, shows that he 
intends morality to be but the consequence and the fruit of faith. 
Were there nothing more, even the οὖν would prove this, and, in like 
manner, the appeal to the mercy of God, which had been the theme 
of the entire previous section of the discourse. Comp. Comm. on 
chap. xii. 1. 

Still more groundless is the hypothesis started by Semler with 


INTRODUCTION. 21 


respect to chap. xv. and xvi. It is developed in his Diss. de duplici 
appendice Ep. Pauli ad Rom. Hale 1767, and is as follows: On 
evidence both external and internal, chap. xv. and xvi. are to be con- 
sidered as a heterogeneous supplement, which did not originally be- 
long to the Epistle. With respect to the external proofs against the 
authenticity of these chapters, in the first place, Origen tells us that 
Marcion did not read them, and he cannot be supposed to have 
lopped them off, seeing that even Epiphanius, who censures his 
other violations of the text, is silent as to this. Besides, Euthalius, 
in his Elenchus Capitulorum, omits the xvi. chap., and lastly, Ter- 
tullian quotes the text xiv. 10, adding the words in clausula Epis- 
tole. With regard, again, to the proofs of an internal kind, it must 
be admitted, that chapter xv. contains matter, which by no means 
agrees with the preceding: the Apostle, there speaking exclusively 
of the events of his private history. ‘The xvi. again, when regarded 
in the common view, contains various improbabilities. Greetings are 
sent to persons whose presence in Rome cannot be proved, and is 
even improbable. Meetings are mentioned in the house of Aquila, 
and also in the house of the persons named in verses 14 and 15. 
Now it is not likely that at that time the Roman church had three 
different places of meeting. Nor, would one be justified in expecting 
such false teachers, as are described in verse 17. Considering all 
this, the most probable supposition is, that Paul gave the entire letter 
to the Christians, returning home from Corinth to Rome, but that he 
commissioned them to visit various brethren at different stations, 
whose names he wrote out in a catalogue, which is what we see in 
our xvi. chapter. As they required first to pass through Cenchrea, 
he addresses them first of all to Phebe, whom he recommended to 
the succour of the travellers(!) After that to Priscilla and Aquila in 
Ephesus, and so on. Chap. xv. was not written by Paul to the Ro- 
mans, but was a sort of private missive intended to be communicated 
by the brethren, to all whom they visited on the way. There is so 
much in this hypothesis of Semler that is forced and unnatural, that 
it scarcely deserves a refutation. Who that reflects upon the 15th 
and 23d verses of chap. xv. and compares with the latter the 13th of 
chap. i. can doubt that the xv. chap. was addressed to the same per- 
sons as the rest of the Epistle? Who could determine in c. xvi. 1, 
to explain iva αὐτὴν πιξοσδέξησθε. “that ye support her in her office 
as deaconess?”’ ‘The internal proofs, as they have been called, are 
bronght by violence to bear upon the point; the external are destitute 
of all weight. Clausula, as used by Tertullian, proves nothing, for 
even we, especially if quoting from memory, would call the xiv. chap. 
the end of the Epistle. It is true that Euthalius does not state the 
contents of chap. xvi., he omits it, however, only because it was not 
publicly read on account of the many names. His acquaintance 
with it is proved by the fact, that the verses of it are included in the 
sum which he gives of those contained in the Epistle. In fine, as 
regards Marcion, Origen does not say that he really rejected the xv. 


22 INTRODUCTION. 


and xvi. chapters, but that he severed them, (ab eo ubi scriptum est, 
quod non exfide est, peccatum est cap. xiv. 23, usque ad finem 
cuncta dissecutt,) because in fact it contained a particular postscript. 

Accordingly, when we candidly reflect upon the subject, it will 
appear the most probable supposition, that Paul meant to close the 
Epistle at the 23d verse of the xiv. chapter, and hence added the 
conclusion, which we read at chap. xvi. 25; that it occurred to him, 
however, to press still more home upon the Romans the subject he 
had handled, and that this led him to add the xv. chapter. We have 
an example of his resuming the subject after a similar intended con- 
clusion in Gal. vi. 12. 


CHAP LE γῸ0ὃ[:1:. 


OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMENTATORS UPON THE EPISTLE TO 
THE ROMANS. 


OricEen (died 253.) Commentarius in Ep. ad Rom. ed. de la 
Rue, T. iv. This commentary is only extant in a Latin translation 
of Rufinus, who, although the work of Origen was no longer com- 
plete, abridged still farther the part that remained, and in several 
places not only extended what appeared to him too short, but adul- 
terated it with his own. Partly for this reason, and partly because 
of Origen’s arbitrary principles of interpretation, the commentary is 
not of great value. Some degree of worth, however, it does possess; 
inasmuch as that great Father of the church, whose belief was 
shackled by no authority, is occasionally led by his very boldness to 
seize the truth. 

Chrysostom (died 407.)—Homilie xxxii. in Ep. ad Rom. in the 
9th vol. of the Montfaucon edition of his works. In different points 
of view, these homilies are masterly, but especially on account of the 
admirable exegetical psychology, with which Chrysostom knows to 
unfold the workings of the Apostle’s heart, the sound principles of 
grammatical and historical interpretation which he observes, and the 
lively evangelical feeling which is everywhere manifest. 

_Augustine (died 430) has left a double work upon the Epistle to 
the Romans. First, his Inchoata Expositio Epistole ad. Rom., and 
then, his Expositio quarumdam propositionum ex. Ep. ad Rom. 
Both are to be found in the third vol. of the Benedictine edition. 
The former embraces no more than c. i. v. 1—7. It is composed ° 
on far too extensive a plan, and is full of useless questions and de- 
viations. ‘The latter work consists in illustrations of several difficult 
passages. We find in it many a fine specimen of Augustine’s deep 
penetration, and insight into the doctrines of Christianity. 


INTRODUCTION. 23 


Pelagius (died subsequently to 417.)—From him we have a com- 
mentary upon this Epistle, which has been generally ascribed to 
Jerome, and hence is to be found in the works of that Father, ed. 
Val. t. xi. ed. Mart. t.v. It belongs, however, to Pelagius, as has 
been shown by Gerhard, Joh. Vossius. In the form in which we 
now possess it, it has been worked up anew by Cassiodorus, who 
sorely mutilated it, leaving out what appeared to him false, or sub- 
stituting something else, and all with such caprice and inaccuracy, 
that occasionally, even the most contradictory meanings appear side 
by side. ‘The Pelagian exposition of the sense generally flattens, 
and robs of the true meaning the expressions of Paul. ‘The com- 
mentary, however, as sometimes giving sound and independent ex- 
planations, may be consulted with advantage. 

Hilary.— We possess, under the name of Ambrose, a Commentary 
upon the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, which is so generally ac- 
knowledged to be spurious, that it is wont to be quoted as the Am- 
brosiaster. ‘To whom it is to be ascribed is uncertain. Augustine 
(Con. duas Epp. Pelag. 1. iv. ὁ. 7) makes a quotation from it under 
the name of “ Saint Hilary;’’ a circumstance from which we may 
confidently infer, that the author was called Hilary, but what Hilary 
he was, itis impossible to ascertain. ‘There is as little reason for 
supposing him the celebrated Bishop of Pictavium, as the Luciferan 
Deacon of Rome. The work contains many unnatural, but, at the 
same time, many very happy explanations. In general, the expo- 
sition has much that is peculiar. 

Theodoret (died after 450.)—His Commentary upon the Romans 
is to be found in the third volume of the Halle edition of his works. 
He is distinguished for clear grammatical interpretation; but does not 
penetrate into the substance of the doctrine, and is far inferior to 
Chrysostom in depth of mind and lively Christian knowledge. 

Cicumenius (in the tenth century,) Comm. in Epp. Paul. Parisiis, 
1631. He excerpts Chrysostom, Photius, Basil, and others. ‘These 
excerpts are highly precious, and afford admirable specimens of 
grammatical and historical interpretation. He occasionally adds his 
own exposition, which also manifests a sound judgment. 

Theophylact (in the eleventh century,)—Comm. in Epp. Paul. 
Londini, 1630. He does little more than make extracts from 
Chrysostom. 

Hugo a Sancto Victore (died 1141) has left us a short treatise, en- 
titled Shedule in Ep. ad Rom., and to be found in Opp. Venetiz, 
1588. It contains several beautiful and profound observations. 

Thomas Aquinas (died 1274.) —We have from him Commentarii 
in Epp. Pauli, Antw. 1591. In these it would be vain to seek solid 
grammatical and historical interpretation. But they, nevertheless, 
frequently afford a sound view and clear development of the truths 
of Christianity, as stated by the Apostle. Erasmus in his Annot. ad 
Rom. i. 2, delivers a flattering panegyric upon the talents of this 
author. 


24 INTRODUCTION. 


Erasmus (died 1536.)—He wrote a paraphrase upon this Epistle, 
last published in Erasmi, Paraph. in N. 'T. Berlin, 1777. And also 
Annotations in the Critici Sacri, t. vii. The paraphrase is distin- 
guished for its elegant Latin style, and often also by a clear percep- 
tion of the connection. ‘The more peculiar Christian element, how- 
ever, is frequently generalized; and, what is especially hurtful in the 
Epistle to the Romans, the distinction between works and free grace 
isnotunderstood. The annotations are generally critical, but several 
of them furnish valuable hints for the grammatical interpretation. 

Luther (died 1546) did not expound the Epistle to the Romans, 
but composed an admirable preface for it, which breathes the very 
spirit of St. Paul. See Walch’s Ausgabe, B. xiv. s. 109. 

Calvin (died 1564.)—His Commentary on this Epistle is to be 
found in vol. vii. of the Amsterdam edition of his works, and in the 
separate edition of the commentary to the Epistles, Geneve, 1565. 
Here are united a classical style, solid grammatical, and historical 
exposition, profound thinking, and vital Christianity. 

Melancthon (died 1560.)—This reformer has left us an expository 
work upon the Epistle to the Romans, in two different shapes. ‘The 
former appeared in 1532, under the title of Annotationes; the latter 
in 1532, with the name Commentarii. They consisted of his lee- 
tures, and afterwards gave rise to the Loci Communes. Melancthon 
delivers mere scholia, and as these are generally rather doctrinal than 
expository, they refer chiefly to the passages in which the doctrines 
are stated. ‘Their chief excellence lies in the fine development 
which the author gives of the importance and nature of the doctrine 
of free grace without the merit of works. Of Melancthon’s par- 
tiality for this Epistle, his contemporary Mylius thus speaks: Chro- 
nol. Script. Mel. Gorlic. 1582. In theologicis observavi, plurimum 
eum fuisse occupatum in explicanda clave et methodo universe 
Scripture, id est Epistola scripta ad Romanos, quam solebat vocare 
lumen propheticarum concionum. Hujus Epistole doctrinam ut 
penitus imbiberet, et instar architecti totam edificii formam in animo 
inclusam haberet, et certam perspicuam ac simplicem sententiam in- 
vestigaret, Omnium eam sepissime pre ceteris Nov. Test. libris 
publice enarravit, et commentariis illustravit; Juvenis etiam aliquoties, 
ut Demosthenes Thucydidem, descripsisse dicitur. 

Zuinglius (died 1531.)—Of him there are extant only brief scho- 
lia, like those of Melancthon; affording specimens of just and natural 
interpretation, but otherwise containing nothing remarkable. ‘They 
are to be found in his Opp. Tiguri, 1581, t. iii. 

Beza (died 1605.)—Novum ‘Testamentum, 1598. In a gram- 
matical point of view, his annotations are valuable. ‘They contain 
occasionally deep perceptions of the sense and of the connection of. 
passages, but are not so rich in profound thought and evangelical 
sentiment as Calvin’s. 

Bugenhagen.—Joh. Pomerani in Ep. ad Rom. Haganoe, 1521. 


INTRODUCTION. 20 


This work consists in notes of lectures, taken by Moibanus, and is 
more of an ascetic and doctrinal than exegetical character. 

Bucer (died 1551.)—Metaphrases et Ennarationes Epp. Paul. t. 
i, Argentorati, 1536.—Shows high exegetical talents, simple uncon- 
strained exposition, free and original, sometimes most ingenious 
views. 

Hunnius (died 1603.)—Expositio Ep. ad Rom. Marp. 1587. 
Strictly Lutheran, and destitute of originality. 

Justinian—Explanationes in omnes Epp. Pauli. Lugd. 1612. 
Not without exegetical ability, and extensive and solid acquaintance 
with the Fathers. 

Cornelius a Lapide (died 1637.)—Comment in omnes Ep. Pauli. 
Antw. 1614. Some of his quotations from the Fathers may be use- 
ful. Here and there, but very rarely, he shows originality of con- 
ception. 

Balduin.—Comment. in omnes Epp. Pauli. Frankf. 1644. The 
commentary on the Epistle to the Romans appeared first in 1611, in 
a separate form. ‘The exposition is learned, orthodox in the Lu- 
theran sense of the word, but not without originality. 

Grotius (died 1645.)—Comm. in Nov. Test. Parisiis, 1644, 2 
vols. ‘The commentary upon the Epistles is far inferior to that upon 
the Gospels. ‘True, it exhibits much valuable philological, historical, 
and antiquarian knowledge, and sometimes an acute judgment. But 
there are also apparent a defective acquaintance with the Christian 
doctrine of salvation, as revealed by Paul, a want of insight into the 
distinction between the law and grace, Pelagian views of the state of 
human nature, and, consequently, an exegesis, often languid, and 
often totally false. 

Cocceius (died 1669.)—His commentary upon this Epistle is 
contained in the fifth volume of his works. It is too exclusively 
doctrinal, and is but seldom available in a grammatical and historical 
point of view. 

Calov. (died 1688.)—Biblia Ilustrata, 1672, 4 vols. The 4th 
contains Paul’s Epistles. He first gives the commentary of Grotius, 
which he then, sentence by sentence, refutes; appending, also, his 
own observations. Grotius is often very justly attacked, but a stiff 
Lutheran exposition is substituted for the simple biblical one. Useful 
notices for the history of the exegesis are given. 

Critici Sacri.—A collection of various valuable and mostly gram- 
matical and historical expositions. It embraces the whole of the Old 
and New Testaments, and was published in 1698, at Amsterdam, in 
9 vols. The Epistles of Paul are contained in the 8th volume. The 
writers are 8118, Revius, Erasmus, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Ze- 
gerus, I)rusius, Casaubon, Gualtperius, Cameron, James and Lewis 
Capellus, and Grotius. ‘The most valuable among the annotations 
are those of Erasmus, Grotius, Clarius, Cameron, and J. Capellus. 

Seb. Schmidt.—His Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. Hamb. 1644, 
reaches only to the 6th chapter. In the manner of that age, the 

4 


26 INTRODUCTION. 


exposition is full of logical distinctions, and doctrinal and polemical 
subtleties. ‘This method, however, helps to place many a subject in 
a clearer light. ‘This commentary is one of the best of the sort, and 
is likewise distinguished for learning. 

Limborch (died 1712.)—Comm. in Acta Apost. et in Ep. ad Rom. 
etad Heb. Roterd. 1711. Shows talent for exegesis, independent 
thinking, but occasionally also that shallowness which so frequently 
characterizes Arminians, and a deficiency of solid philology. 

Alp. Turretin (died 1737.)—Prelectiones in Ep. ad Rom. Lau- 
sanne. Exhibits artless, natural and free interpretation, but a want 
of thorough philological grounding. 

Siegm. J. Baumgarten (died 1757) wrote Auslegung des Briefes 
an die Rémer. Halle, 1747. Its chief feature is a deficiency of 
philological knowledge. It is valuable on no other account than that 
the tabular method in which it is composed, with its endless divisions, 
sometimes enables us to form more distinct ideas. 

Bengel (died 1752.)—The Gnomon Novi Testamenti of this au- 
thor, second edition, 1759, contains acute and ingenious observations, 
mingled with many that are futile. ‘The train of thought is some- 
times indicated with great acuteness. 

Joh. Bened. Carpzov (died 1803) wrote Stricture Sacre in Ep. 
ad Rom. second edition, 1758. Available contributions from Philo. 

Wolf. (died 1739.)— Cure Philologice. Basil, 1737. The 
Epistle to the Romans is in the third vol. Jt contains useful anti- 
quarian and philological remarks, together with much confused stuff. 

Heumann (died 1764.)—His Commentary on this Epistle is in 
the seventh vol. of his Erkliirung des N. T. It exhibits great in- 
dustry in the collection of materials, occasionally soundness, but 
more frequently perversity of judgment, with considerable originality. 
The chief deficiency is in philological knowledge. 

Chr. Schmidt (died 1778.)—Adnott. in Ep.ad Rom. Lips. 1777. 
This commentary is distinguished for sound and unprejudiced judg- 
ment and grammatical knowledge. It is not sufficiently extensive. 

Koppe (died 1791.)—His Commentar zum Brief an die Rémer, 
which first appeared in 1783, was edited afresh by Ammon in 1806, 
and finally in 1824. ‘The interpretation is for the most part uncon- 
strained, but does not always rest upon solid research. He is unac- 
quainted with the true spirit of Paul, and misapprehends the more 
profound Christian doctrines. 

Joh. Fr. Flatt published in 1825 Vorlesungen iiber den Brief an 
die Rémer. ‘Tiibingen. He shows a good acquaintance with the 
exegetical writers of the last decennia of the eighteenth and the first 
of the nineteenth century, but wants accurate philological grounding, 
and does not enter deeply enough into the doctrines. 

After these proper commentaries, there exist for the use of the 
student, multifarious Observationes and Annotationes. ‘The most 
profitable to consult are Stephen de Brais Analysis Paraphrastica Ep. 
ad Rom. cum ejus notis, curante Venema qui suas Observ. adjecit. 


INTRODUCTION. 27 


Leov. 1735. Venema’s observations are, in a philological view, 
highly precious. Schittgen, Hore 'Talmudica, t. 11. He gives nu- 
merous instructive parallels from the Rabbins. Elsner, Observatt. 
Sacre, Traj. ad Rhenum, 1720—28, t. 11. and Kypke, Observatt. 
Sacre, Bresl. 1755, t. ii. offer valuable philological contributions 
from various profane authors. Bauer, Philologia Thucydideo-Pau- 
lina, Halle, 1773, contains some good remarks from ‘Thucydides. 
Raphelii Annott. Philol. in N. 'T. ex Xenophonte, Polybio, Arriano, 
Herodoto, Lugd. Bat. 1747, 2 vols. A very rich philological col- 
lection. The following are works which will less reward consulta- 
tion. Krebs Observatt. e Josepho; Lisner, Observatt. e Philone; 
Palairet, Observatt. Phil. in N. T.; Miinthe, Observatt. e Diodoro 
Siculo; Keuchen, Observatt. in N. T.; De Prado, Observatt. et 
Annott. in N. T.; Ernesti Anmerkungen zum N. T. 

As introduction to this Epistle may be used the admirable work 
of Rambach, written with a thorough knowledge of the subject, In- 
troductio Historico-Theologica in Ep. Pauli, ad Rom. Hale, 1730. 
Usteri has developed the doctrinal idea of the Epistles of Paul, and 
of this among the rest, in his Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehr- 
begriffs, Ziirich, 1824. In the first part of this treatise there is an 
able evolution of the idea of the νόμος and of its antithesis to πνεῦμα. 
In general he walks in the steps of his great master Schleiermacher, 
not only in his ingenious conception of the doctrines, but likewise in 
the artificial exegesis with which the latter is chargeable. 


i ea γ “ἢ Na 


᾿γανρϑεομόσε 


ἘΧΡΟΝΙΤΙΟΝ 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


CHAPTER FIRST. 


ARGUMENT. 


Arrer the Salutation, the Apostle assures the Romans of his affection, and 
tells them how he had often proposed to visit Rome, for the purpose of 
preaching the Gospel there, seeing that all men stand in need of the Gos- 
pel, and need it in an equal degree. In the first place, the heathen do so, 
inasmuch as they lie under the threatenings of God’s penal justice, for 
having, contrary to the dictates of the Divine revelation within them, de- 
nied the true nature of God, and sunk, in consequence of their knowledge 
of God being thus obscured, into the most abominable vices. 


DIVISION. 


1. The Salutation, V. 1—7. 

2. Introduction, V. 8—16. 

3. Thesis, V. 16, 17. 

4, Exposition of the Thesis in the case of the Heathen, as respects the 
speculative errors into which they were led by their practical de- 
pravity. V. 18—23. 

5. Exposition of the Thesis in the case of the Heathen, as respects the 
practical depravity, into which they fell, in consequence of their specu- 
lative errors. V. 24—382. 


PART 1. 


THE SALUTATION. v. 1—7. 


V.1. Tue Apostle, penetrated as he so deeply was, with the 
thought of the high honour which God had conferred upon him, by 
calling him in an extraordinary manner, to be a preacher of the gos- 
pel, cannot abstain from making allusion to this, at the beginning of 


all his Epistles, a circumstance which, in the present case, should 
naturally heighten the impression upon the mind of the reader. 


30 CHAPTER 1. v. 1. 


Παῦλος. ‘The Apostle was properly called Saul. But along with 
this Jewish name, he had another as a Roman citizen. It was thus 
that many Jews, who lived among the Romans, besides their native 
Hebrew appellations, assumed others of Latin origin, as Dostai, Do- 
sitheus, 'Varphon, Trypho; while those again, residing among the 
Greeks, took names from their language, as Jesus, Jason, Joiakim, 
Alkimos. In such cases, the Roman and Greek had generally some 
similarity in sound with the Jewish words; as Paul has with Saul. 
This is the most natural way of explaining the origin of the double 
name of the Apostle, and is given so early as by Origen, (Pref. ad 
Comm. ad Rom.) 

δοῦλος, connected with the name of God, is found in the Old and 
New Testament, bearing a twofold signification. It designates, in 
the former, generally all pious Israelites; in the latter, all Chris- 
tians; e.g. Ps. exili. 1. Eph. vi. 6, inasmuch as the true worship- 
per of God should always maintain upon his mind a sense of his 
dependence upon the Divine Being. Suill the designation is found 
more rarely, in this sense, in the New Testament, because, under it, 
the feeling of love, more than the feeling of subjection, ought to 
reign. More frequently are Christians spoken of as the children 
of God; and Christ himself called his disciples, not servants, but 
friends, John xv. 15. On the other hand, however, in the Old Tes- 
tament, extraordinary messengers of God are styled servants of God, 
mit tay, Deut. xxxiv. 5. Josh.i.1. Neh. x. 29; and in the New, 
the superior officers of the church of Christ, Gal. i. 10. Jamesi. 1. 
Col. iv. 12. This last is the sense in which it here stands. 

xaytos. Melancthon: Necessaria causa est, cur officii mentionem 
faciat, ut ecclesia sciat doctrine Pauli credendum esse. χαλέω, like 
wp, 10 choose or select. The vocation of Paul is related in Acts 
xxvi. 17. As this Apostle uses the word, χαλέω comprehends, no 
less the outward call to belief, by the instrumentality of events and 
circumstances, than the inward call, by the motions of the Holy 
Spirit. Erasm. Hee vox peculiaris est Paulo, cui studium est om- 
nibus adimere fiduciam operum humanorum, totamque gloriam trans- 
ferre ad vocantem Deum, cui vocanti qui auscultat salvus est. Theo- 
phylact: Tarewopeootyys τὸ ῥῆμα, δείκνυσι yae ὅτι οὐκ αὐτὸς ζητήσας 
EDEEV, ἀλλὰ χληθεὺς παρεγένετο. ἢ 

ἀφωρισμένος IS an epexegesis. Origen: Secundum id quod in eo 
previdet aut eligit Deus, aut Apostolos quisque vocatur, aut Propheta. 
In like manner does God speak to the prophet, Jer. 1. 5. ““ Before 
I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth 
out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet 
unto the nations.”’ St. Paul uses similar language of himself, Gal. 
1.15. Hesychius explains dégaecouévos as Synonymous with éxrcreypé- . 


* An expression of humble mindedness, intimating that he had not found 
because he had sought, but that he had come because he was called. 


CHAPTER I. V. 2. 31 


vos Staxexeruévos, in Which sense it is used, Acts, xiii. ὦ. Radically 
it means, not to destine, but to separate. ‘ 

εὐαγγέλιον employed, per metonomen, for the publication of the 
doctrine, which the word also signifies in 1 Cor. iv. 15; ix. 14. So 
ver. 5, there stands és ὑπακοὴν πίστεως» instead of zug τὸ ὑπαχούειν τῇ 
πίστει πάντα τὼ ἔθνη. 

Θεοῦ. Chrysostom takes this up falsely as the genitivus objecti, 
the gospel concerning God, supposing an allusion to the heathen not 
having acknowledged him as the one God, ‘The objectum does not 
follow until the 3d verse. Θεοῦ is here the gen. subjecti. ‘Theophylact 
explains it correctly ὡς Swendiv noed τοῦ Θεοῦ. It is the Son who 
founds the entire plan of salvation upon earth. But he who sends the 
Son is the Father, and to him accordingly the whole is referred back. 

V. 2. The thought that he had been sent forth to proclaim a new 
doctrine suggests to the Apostle the recollection that Christianity 
could not be said to be altogether new, nor had come, at unawares, 
into the world. ‘Theophyl. ἐπευδὴ ὡς καινὸν διέβαλον τὸ κήξυγμα» δεύ- 
χνυσιν αὐτὸ meEcBTseov ὃν τῶν “Ἑλληνων.ἢ In like manner, when be- 
fore Festus, Acts xxvi. 22, Paul appeals to the fact, that he was not 
an innovator, and that the message of salvation which he brought was 
nothing else than that which all the prophets had foretold. Emanat- 
ing from Judea, at this time, a rumour had widely spread among the 
Gentile nations, that the king for whom Israel had long so fondly 
looked, was soon about to come, and would subject the whole earth 
to his sway. ‘Tacitus, Hist. L. v. c. 13, takes notice of this rumour, 
‘Pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo 
ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Judwa rerum po- 
tirentur.”” So also Suetonius, in Vesp. 6. 4, ““ Percrebuerat Oriente 
toto, vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judea pro- 
fecti rerum potirentur.”’ If, then, they did not rejoice, how deeply 
at least must it have roused the curiosity and attention of the heathen, 
when they were told that at this time there had arisen men in Judea 
who proclaimed aloud the long expected Prince, and sacrificed their 
lives for his sake! 

πϑοεπηγγείλατο. Immediately upon the fall of the first man, the 
promise of a deliverer was vouchsafed, in what has been called the 
protevangelium, Gen. iii. 15. The holy men of the old world 
strengthened their hearts, by looking forward to the time of restora- 
tion, and the nearer the era appointed for the arrival of the promised 
Saviour approached, the clearer became the intimations of the pro- 
phets with respect to him, down to Zecharias ix. 9, xi. 18, and at 
last Malachi, with whom the Old Testament closes. The final an- 
nouncement of the latter, c. ili. 1, and Mark i. 3, form the connect- 
ing links of the two economies. 

ἐν yeapacs ἅγιαις. The plural, equivalent to the more ordinary ἡ 


* He answers the objection that what he preached was new, by showing 
that it was more ancient than the Greeks themselves, 


32 CHAPTER I. ν. 3, 4. 


yeaon, and found in the Fathers, who have ai xvecaxai yeapai. Erasm, 
Promissus fuit non a quovis, sed ab ipso Deo, nec per quosvis, sed 
per prophetas suos ἢ. 6. veros ac divinos, nec id quibuslibet instru- 
mentis, sed in scripturis sacris. 

V. 3. Here follows the subject of the glad tidings; they treat of 
Christ and his dignity. 

meet tov ὑιοῦ. It is a question with what this περὶ is to be con- 
strued, whether with πεοοεπηγγείλατο in the second verse, or with 
εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ in the first. Chrysostom notices the difficulty attend- 
ing a proper arrangement of the clauses, and says ἀσαφὲς τὸ εἰξημένον 
ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν λήξεων τίλοκῇς yéyovs.* Modern commentators make two 
or three parentheses. Almost all agree in enclosing verse second in 
brackets. But besides this, several do the same with the words, 
from τοῦ γενομένου as far as vexecv, and some also with ᾿Ιησοῦ Xevozov 
τοῦ Kveiov ἡμῶν. ‘The two last parentheses are totally unnecessary. 
The first might, perhaps, be admitted, inasmuch as the zee would 
then connect itself with εὐαγγέλιον more closely than it otherwise does 
with πεοεπηγγείλατος. But even that ought to be rejected. ‘The an- 
cients, in general, seldom made parentheses; more rarely still the 
Hebrews, and least of all Paul, with the glow of whose diction the 
practice was scarcely compatible. The least credible of all, is the 
supposition of Heumann, that the Apostle inserted these three pas- 
sages upon a subsequent perusal of the Epistle. Accordingly we 
connect πεφὺ with πεοεπηγγείλατο. 

V. 3, 4. τοῦ γενομένου xverov ἡμῶν. We find here, what often 
occurs in the writings of this author, a large group of co-ordinate 
clauses. With reference to these, we remark, that Paul’s peculiar 
mode of thinking, and, consequently, also of expression, is most 
aptly compared to a throng of waves, where, in ever loftier swell, 
one billow presses close upon the other. Like all men of lively 
temperament, he ever seeks to heighten the impression of his words, 
by appending new explanations or definitions. For a striking ex- 
ample, see the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Such is the 
case in the present instance. Not content with having, in the first 
verse, described the Gospel as a new and joyful message, he cannot 
choose but describe it also, in the second, as having been the object 
of long and ardent expectation. Here, likewise, he is not satisfied 
with having simply named the Son of God; but figuring to himself, 
at once, all that is implied in this appellation, he proceeds to unfold 
it, in opposition to the Judaising teachers, who denied so lofty a title 
to the Saviour. The following is a just observation of Wolle, 
(Comm. de Parenthesi Sacra, p. 63:) Hie vides sanctissimum πάθος 
Pauli, sigillatim affeectum erga Iesum Christum ardentissimum, quo 
divinum ejus pectus ita abundavit, ut suavissimi hujus servatoris . 
mentionem injiciens, sibi temperare non posset, quominus summam 
ejus personam maximis in ccelum laudibus extolleret. 


* The complication of the words makes what he has said obscure. 


CHAPTER I. V. 3, 4. 33 


No sooner does Paul mention the name of Christ, than the whole 
import of the title flashes upon his mind. He describes him as the 
royal son of David. ‘This, however, was nothing above what the 
Judaising teachers allowed him to be. Paul knows him no more 
κατὰ odexa, 2 Cor. v. 16. Before his eyes the Saviour is ever pre- 
sent as a glorified being, and therefore, he immediately adds, that, 
besides being son of David, he is of a still loftier nature, having been 
manifested as vids θεοῦ. According to this view, we have here a cli- 
max, such as the Apostle often uses, and which is generally expressed 
by an οὐ μόνον δέ. Rom. v. 3. 11, viii. 23, or a μάλλον δὲν Rom. viii. 
34. Older expositors, wishing to put into these words the doctrinal 
view they held of the Divine and human nature of Christ, suppose 
here not a climax, but a decided antithesis, betwixt the clauses, the one 
beginning with γενόμενα, and the other with ὁφυσθέντος. ‘The climax 
consists in this, that Christ who, xara σάρκα; is a scion of the royal 
stock of David, has also been manifested as the partaker of a still 
loftier dignity. 

Saeé, as used by Paul, signifies in general the human nature 
according to its ordinary constitution here below, and hence involves 
the inherent idea of weakness. See this idea more fully developed, 
ὁ. vii. 14. When applied to Christ, it denotes all that he had in 
common with other men, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 John iv. 2, 2 John vi. 
comp. Heb. ii. 14, and forms the contrast to the divine element in 
his person. 

Ἔχ σπέρματος Δαδίδι Even this was an honour. His royal ex- 
tra¢tion, acknowledged as it was by the Judaising teachers them- 
selves, elevated him high in the scale of rank. But Paul has a still 
higher dignity to specify. Jesus Christ was also υἱὸς Θεοῦ. As used 
in the New Testament, this expression primarily denotes one who 
stands in a near and special relationship to God, and upon whom, 
betokened either by the outward distinction which he enjoys, or by 
the rich manifestation of the Spirit within, the action of a peculiar 
divine influence is discernible. Hence, it is bestowed as an appella- 
tion upon celestial beings, Gen. vi. 2, Job i. 6, upon rulers and kings, 
Ps. Ixxxii. 6. Ps. ii. 6, and upon men, who live according to the 
will of God, Deut. xiv. 1,2 Sam. vii. 14. It was even assumed by 
Christ himself. As the general idea which the title implies, viz. 
that of amore close relationship to God, is indefinite, the expression 
admitted of a great variety of applications, and accordingly we find it 
has been used by Christ and the Apostles, in manifold and various 
senses; of which, however, the one does not usually exclude the 
other. Sometimes the prominent conception is that of @ theocratical 
King, or the Messiah, Matt. xxvi. 63, Luke iv. 41, John i. 49, vi. 
69, x. 36, xi. 27, Matt. xvi. 16, comp. with Luke ix. 20, Matt. xxvii. 
40, comp. with Luke xxiii. 35. In these passages, however, we 
must beware of forthwith translating it the Messiah; for although 
such be its proper import, the general signification, viz. ‘he chosen 


34 CHAPTER I. V. 3, 4. 


of God (ὃ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, also a name of the Messiah,) or one near 
to God, is still retained. Hence, in these instances, other references 
of the title are not altogether excluded, and that, for the following, if for 
no other reason, that according to many Jewish theologians, it be- 
hoved the Messiah to be of exalted and divine nature, a fact at which 
the Saviour himself hints, Matt. xxii. 43. Sometimes the expression 
refers to the miraculous generation of Christ by immediate divine 
agency, Luke i. 35, comp. with iii. 388. Occasionally Christ appears 
to assume it, in virtue of that higher relationship in which he stood 
towards God, and from the consciousness of a participation in the 
illimitable divine nature, Mat. xxviii. 19, xi. 27. So frequently in 
John. In so far as the writings of Paul are concerned, the first of 
these special acceptations seems to predominate, in such a manner, 
however, as that he likewise meant to express the divine nature in 
Christ, according to those loftier views of the Messiah, entertained 
by the Jewish theologians to which we have above adverted. 

ὁρίζειν, to mark off, define, and hence, to appoint, declare. Even 
classical authors have the phrase δείξειν cud θεόν. Hence Chrysos- 
tom and Theodoret here rightly expound ἀποδειχθέντος. ‘* The same 
who xara σάρκα was only known as the descendant of David, is now 
declared to be the Son of God.” 

By what means? The answer to this question, the majority of 
commentators seek in ἐξ ἀναστάσεως vexeav, a phrase which must be 
resolved into ἀνάστασις tx τῶν vexewv, the resurrection of Christ from 
the dead, and his victory over death, having, as it were, demonstrated 
his superior nature. Now, the resurrection, per se, does not suffice 
to demonstrate this, seeing that other men, as Lazarus for example, 
have been restored to life. Still, in the mind of the Apostle, with the 
resurrection of the Saviour, there is always coupled the idea of do- 
minion, with which he was then invested, over the human race. The 
ἀνάστασις, in his view, denotes the whole period of exaltation from 
the time when he arose from the dead, and when death ceased to 
have any more dominion over him, see chap. vi. 10. For the same 
reason he also represents the δικαίωσις of men as a consequence of 
the ἀνάστασις: chap. ix. 25. Thus, he divides the life of Christ into 
two sections, that in which the ἀσθένεια reigned, and that in which 
the δύναμις Θεοῦ. But if the idea attached to ἀνάστασις must be thus 
widely extended, then the import in which we are to take up ἐξ ἀνασ- 
τάσεως resolves itself into the other, sanctioned by 'Theodoret and 
Grotius, in which ἔξ like ἀπὸ, Luke viii. 27, Acts ix. 33, denotes 
the point of time. In this case, the sense would be, “he has been 
declared the Son of God since the time when, having arisen from the 
grave, he was exalted to divine glory.”’ But how is ἐν δυνάμευ rela- 
ted to this passage, and with what particular word is it to be con- 
strued? It is used adverbially M7222, and signifies, according to 
Beza, potenter. If we compare the passage already quoted, 2 Cor. 
xii. 4, we might be inclined to join it with ixds Θεοῦ, * he has been 


~ 


CHAPTER 1. Vv. 4, 5. 3: 


declared as the mighty glorified Son of God.” At the same time, it 
may equally well be joined with the verb éecGew, “he has in a glo- 
rious manner been declared as the Son of God.” 

There now remains only the phrase χατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. This 
seems to answer as a contrast to χατὰ caexa, and hence denotes the 
divine nature in Christ, whatever is not referable to the ordinary, 
humble, and human form, in which he appeared. More frequently 
is this same idea, with less precision, spoken of as a being full of the 
σἰνεῦμα ἅγιον, Luke iv. 1,18. John iii. 34, Acts x. 38. Comp. 
Heb. ix. 14, διὼ πνεύματος αἰωνίου. ‘* By virtue of his divine nature, 
has he, after overcoming bodily death, been made manifest as the 
Son of God.” Wetstein aptly illustrates, as regards the sense, 
the contrast between xara σάρκα and xara πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης» by hu- 
militas and majestas. Michaelis goes far astray, when he renders 
the phrase, ‘‘ according to the declarations of the Holy Spirit.”” The 
expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης instead of ἅγιον may appear strange. 
Bengel tries to distinguish between ἁγιότης sanctitas, ἁγιωσύνη Sancti- 
monia, and ἁγιασμὸς sanctificatio. But the distinction is arbitrary. 
Even so in the Latin, there is no shade of difference between sancti- 
monia and sanctitas, see Forcellini, 5. ἢ. v., and in the Greek ἁγιωσύνη 
is as much like ἁγιὸτῆς» aS ἀγαθοσύνη 15 to ἀγαθότης. Here the sub- 
stantive in the genitive case stands, as in the Hebrew, by circumlo- 
eution for the adjective, so that πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is equivalent to πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον. Paul may, perhaps, have chosen the less ordinary expression, 
as πνεῦμα ἅγιον might have too easily led the reader to think of what 
that expression generally implies, the derivative gifts of the Spirit. 

We have only farther to observe, that others arrange the clauses 
in a diflerent way. Chrysostom and Melancthon construe the three 
phrases, κατὰ σίνεῦμο ayLaovuns,—ev Svvduets—and ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν» 
as co-ordinate, and find in them three proofs of the divinity of Christ: 
Ist, By power, 7. 6. by miracles; 2d, by the communication of the 
Ποῖ Ghost; 3d, by the resurrection from the dead, was he demon- 
strated to be the Son of God. ‘The Syrian interpreter construes 
together only ἐν δυνάμει, and xara πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. ‘To say nothing 
of other objections, however, the very change of the prepositions 
makes this arrangement of the clauses improbable. 

V. 5. The mention of the Saviour’s exaltation makes the Apostle 
reflect on what he himself had obtained through this glorified Mes- 
sias. In his conversion and illumination, he had received tokens 
of grace, 1 Tim, 1. 13, but more especially in being called to preach 
the word. Strictly considered, therefore, it is wrong to say, with 
Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, that yaevs and ἀποστολὴ constitute 
a Hendiadis, and stand for χάρις τῆς ἀποστολῆς. Augustine: Gratiam 
cum omnibus fidelibus accepit, apostolatum non cum omnibus. 

εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως. The Apostle specifies the end and aim of his 
office. πίστις may either be considered objectively or subjectively. 
Objectively, it means the same as εὐαγγέλιον, the doctrines of the 
faith. In this signification, Theodoret takes it up, as also Beza, 


36 CHAPTER I, Vv. 5. 


Bengel, Wolf, and others, and a parallel passage is found in 2 Cor. 
ΙΧ. 13,—inorayy τῆς ὁμολογίας εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Still, it is not un- 
likely that St. Paul here used πίστις in the subjective sense, and de- 
signs by it the immediate conviction of the truth, laying hold upon 
the consciousness, and subjecting the understanding of man. It may, 
perhaps, be his object to set in a strong light, how all depends upon 
the personal πιστεύειν compliance with the divine call, on the part 
of the individual. In this case, the substantive πίστεως in the 
genitive, according to the Hebrew idiom, stands in the place of the 
adjective πιστιχὺς OY πειθημών. Such is Chrysostom’s view of the 
passage: τῶν ἀποστόλων γὰρ ἣν τὸ πεξιέναι καὶ xNevTTEW, τὸ δὲ πείθευν» 
τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν αὐτοῖς Θεοῦ. καθὼς xat ὃ Λουχᾶς φησιν, ὅτι διήνοιξε 
τὴν xagdvay αὐτῶν" xa πάλιν, οἷς ἣν δεδομένον ἀκοῦσαν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ- 
Οὐχ sinter, εἰς φήτησιν καὶ κατασκευὴν, ἀλλ᾽» εἰς ὑπακχοήν" οὐδὲ γὰξ 
ἐπέμφθημέν, φησι, συλλογίζεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ Sree ἐνεχειξίσθημεν, ἀποδοῦναυ..ἢ 
Such is also the view of Sebastian Schmidt, 

ἐν πᾶσι τοὺς ἔθνεσιν is joined by Beza with ἐλάβομεν, in order to 
avoid the harshness of construction which arises, when it is united 
with the clause εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως» even then too concise. Notwith- 
standing this harshness, however, the latter is the true manner of con- 
struing it. ‘The Apostle was led to adopt the construction with ἐν 
by having in his mind a lively conception of this faith, as spread like 
seed among all nations. Hence, in place of the genitive πάντων; 
which was to have been expected, he substitutes ἐν πᾶσυ “ in order 
that faith in the Gospel may be produced among all nations,”’ πᾶς is 
equivalent to the Hebrew 9, qualiscunque. The Apostles frequently 
give animated expression to the sentiment, that by the preaching of 
Christ, every wall of partition between nations even the most diverse, 
is done away. 

ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. With what is this appended clause to be 
connected?) Chrysostom joins it immediately to πίστεως, considering 
it as specifying the object of faith, and thus gives ize the signification 
of meei—ovy iva τὴν ὀυσίαν αὐτοῦ περιεργασώμεθα, GAN’ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
πιστεύσωμεν. In like manner, Theophylact, Erasmus, and Ammon. 
It is a still more violent procedure to connect it with yaew xoi ἀποσ- 
zoajv, aS is done by Beza, Bengel, Limborch and others; the last 
mentioned of whom translates the words, ut nomen ejus glorificetur, 
The simplest, and at the same time the way most accordant with the 
genius of the Helenistic dialect, is to refer it back generally to the 
words εἰς ὑπαχοὴν πίστεως, according to the translation of Castalio: 
Per quem gratiam sumus et apostolatum adepti, ut obediatur fidei ob 


* The office of the Apostles was to go about and preach; to persuade was 
the part of God working within them. As says St. Luke: He opened their 
hearts, and, to whom it was given to hear the word of God. He does notsay, 
for searching or demonstrating, but for obedience, meaning, we have been sent 
not to reason, but to impart that of which we have been put in charge. 

+ Not that we should pry into his nature, but that we should believe on his 
name, 


CHAPTER I. v. 6, 7. 37 


ejus nomen apud omnes gentes. "Ovouo, OW, the contents, compen- 
dium of the qualities, and hence an emphatical cireumlocution for 
the person. The sense is consequently as follows, “in order that 
by means of the propagation of the faith among all nations, Christ 
may be glorified.”’ By thinking of all nations the Apostle’s mind is 
next directed to those, whom he is at the time addressing. 

V. 6. ἐν οἷς. Chrysostom: εἴγε τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ περὺ ἔθνος ἕν ἐγύγνετο; 
αὕτη δὲ γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν ἐπεσπάσατο. Here the Apostle makes the 
transition. Having been called and appointed by Christ to be a 
preacher of salvation to all nations, in that lies my right to address 
myself to you Romans. 

χλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Xevorov. xanros, in the language of Paul, denotes the 
person to whom God outwardly gives the opportunity of becoming 
acquainted with the Gospel, and whom, at the same time, he in- 
wardly draws by his Spirit to embrace it. As our Apostle else- 
where uniformly traces the χαλεῖν to the agency of the Father, the 
ultimate source of the entire economy of salvation, it is probable, that 
here the genitive, Ἰησοῦ Χειστοῦ is equivalent to weds Xevoroy, and the 
sense, ‘“* who have been brought to Jesus Christ.”? In another of the 
Homilies of Chrysostom, the import of χαλεῦν is beautifully illustrated. 
τί οὖν Huds δούλεταυ διδάξαυ (ὁ Παῦλος) dia τοῦ κλητὸν ἑαυτὸν χαλέσαυ; 
ὅτυ οὐκ αὐτὸς τῷ δεσπότῃ πεξοσῆλθε πεῶτος; ἀλλὰ χληθὲυς ὑπήκουσεν" οὐκ 
αὐτὶς ἐξήτησε καὶ εὔξεν ἀλλ᾽ εὐξέθη πλανώμενος" οὐκ αὐτὸς Meds τὸ φῶς ἀνέ- 
Grebe MEWT0S, ἀλλὰ τὸ φὼς τὰς οἰκείας ἀκτίνας πρὸς τὰς ὄψευς ἀφῆκεν τὰς 
ἐχεύνου, καὶ τούς ἔξω πηξώσας ὀφθαλμοὺς τοὺς ἔνδοθεν ἠνοιξε.ἷ 

V. 7. Here follows the proper salutation. All the inward and 
spiritual glory, which was one day to be manifested in the ghostly 
kingdom of regenerated Christians upon the earth, was in a bodily 
manner prefigured by the people of Israel; and hence the Jewish 
Theocracy, in respect of its outward typical institutions, was called, 
Ex. xix. 6, “A kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.”” Deut. xxiii. 
1, “The congregation of the Lord.’”’ Is. xxxii. 19, “The sons 
and daughters of the Lord.’? With still deeper meaning, were all 
these appellations afterwards transferred to the invisible community 
of believers. With Ex. xix. 6, compare 1 Pet. ii. 9. With Deut. 
xxiii, 1, 1 Tim. iii. 15, and with Deut. xxxii. 19, Phil. ii. 15, 1 
John iii. 1 and 2, v. 10. The members of this community enter it 
indeed defiled, but not merely by name are they held bound to be 
saints. ‘The transforming Spirit of Christ must actually renew and 
brighten the Saviour’s image in their souls. Augustine: Non ita in- 


* The former dispensation respected one people alone; this has attracted 
both earth and sea. 

+ What then does Paul mean to teach us, when he says that he was called? 
He means, that it was not he who first came to the Master, but that, having 
been called to him, he obeyed; that he did not spontaneously seek and find, 
but that he was found, when he was wandering; that it was not he who first 
looked up to the light, but the light which sent its rays upon his vision, and 
having closed his outward, opened his inward eyes. 


38 CHAPTER I. V. 7. 


telligendum tanquam ideo vocati sint qui sancti erant, sed ideo sancti 
effecti quia vocati sint. 

ἀγαπητὸς. Subst. a favourite, darling, in the LXX. for WTVH. 

πᾶσι τοῖς ovote ‘This expression is more comprehensive than if the 
Apostle had merely said τῇ ἐκκλησίῳ τῇ ἐν Ῥώμῃ" for it evidently em- 
braces all the Christian strangers then present in the city, and who, 
for the period of their stay, might have joined themselves to the Ro- 
man Church. This must have been a very numerous class, owing 
to the extensive traffic which the inhabitants of the provinces carried 
on with the capital. In the time of Juvenal, for example, there were 
such a number of Greeks in Rome, that he calls it ““ Graecam urbem.”’ 

χάρις καὶ εἰρήνην Supply ἔστω. Even the Christian greeting an- 
nounces the peculiarity of the gospel, which while other systems 
summon to the combat and point to the prize from afar, first bestows 
the wreath of victory, and having thus animated the warrior, leads 
him forth into the field. By the coming of the Saviour, objectively, 
the relation of God to man is changed; subjectively, the believer is 
made to partake of the blessings which the gospel brings. Object- 
ively χάρις is the divine favour towards the believer; subjectively, it 
is the manifestation of that, in the communication of the πνεῦμα τῆς 
υἱοθεσίας, Which is also a πνεῦμα εἰφήνης. Rom. v. 1. The Saviour 
himself employed the common Jewish form of salutation 029 21, in 
this loftier and peculiar Christian sense. (Author’s Comm. zu Joh. 
xx. 19.) εἰρήνην it is true, is the common Hebrew salutation pou, 
and ought, therefore, perhaps to be translated salvation rather than 
peace. In the New Testament, however, the Greek sense of peace 
seems to predominate even in the form of greeting, as is shown by 
its position beside χάρις. It appears, moreover, to involve an allusion 
to the removal of guilt through Christ. In this import, our Saviour 
himself uses it, John xx. 19. Chrysostom: © meoonyoeias μυρίων pe- 
eovens ἀγαθά. Τοῦτο καὶ ὃ Xevoros τοὺς Anooronors εἰς τὰς οἰκίας εὐσιοῦσυ» 
πίξῶτον ῥῆμα φάσχειν ἐπέταττε. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ 6 ἸΤαῦλος ἐντεῦθεν παντα- 
χοῦ πεοοιμιάξεταν ἀπὸ τῆς χάξυιτος καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης. οὐδὲ γὰρ μυκξὸν κα’ 
φέλυσεν ὁ Xevoros πόλεμον, ἀλλὰ πουκύλον καὶ παντοδαπὸν, καὶ χρόνιον. 
καὶ τοῦτον οὐκ Ex τῶν ἡμετέξων πονῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ χάρυτος" “Exec 
οὖν ἡ μὲν ἀγάπη τὴν χάριν; ἣ δὲ YAS τὴν εἰξήνην ἐδωφξήσατο, ὡς ἐν τάξει 
πἰροσηγοξίας αὐτὰ θεὶς» ἐπεύχεταν μένειν διηνεκῇ καὶ ἀκίνητα.Ἔ 


* O salutation fraught with innumerable blessings! This was what Christ 
enjoined upon the Apostles to say, upon their entering into men’s houses. 
And hence it is, that Paul prefaces all his epistles by wishing grace and 
peace. For,truly it is no petty warfare to which Christ has put an end. It 
is manifold, various and protracted. Neither has it been brought by toils of our 
own toa close, butsolely by his grace. So then,as grace was the gift of love, 
and peace of grace, he ranges them side by side in the salutation, and prays 
that they may continue immoveable and for evermore. 


CHAPTER I. v. 8. 39 


PART. DL. 
INTRODUCTION, v. 8—16. 


V. 8. Here commences the introduction of the Epistle, to which 
the Apostle passes by protestations of affection. Previously he had 
declared the authority by which he wrote to the Romans; here, as 
Theodoret remarks, he seems almost to apologize, for not having 
sooner taken an interest in them. 

meorov is an introductory form, and requires to be translated, first 
of all, before I proceed to other matters. ‘The expression is here 
abbreviated, and stands for πρῶτον μὲν θέλῳ εἰδέναυ ὑμᾶς» ὅτι εὐχαξιστῶ 
τῷ Θεῷ. 

Θεός μου says the Apostle, because the man who through Christ is 
reconciled to God, recognizes him as the affectionate Father of every 
individual soul, and enters into a peculiar relationship of filial love to 
him. 

διὰ Ἰησοὺ Xevorov. Inasmuch as their connection with Christ in- 
fluences the whole life of believers, and through his mediation flow 
all the blessings of divine grace, the Apostle makes allusion to him 
in pronouncing his thanksgiving. He expresses the same idea in 
another way, when he says, 2 Cor. i. 3, εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴξ 
τοῦ Κυξίον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χειστοῦ. Ep. i. 3. The sense of διὰ is given 
by John xiv. 13, 14, it is equivalent to ἐν ὀνόματι- 

inte πάντων ὑμῶν. Here the Vulgate falsely renders, pro; the 
Syrian correctly, respectu vestrum. The gratitude felt by the Apostle, 
on 2ccount of the faith of the Romans being celebrated universally 
in the Christian churches, for so must the words ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ χόσμῳ be 
understood, is to be explained, not only by the ardent love, which he 
bore to the Saviour, and which received gratification from every new 
accession to the number of the believers, but by the consideration, 
that Rome being the metropolis, its example was calculated to have 
the most salutary influence upon the whole empire, when once traces 
of the true faith were manifest here. Grotius: Magno cum gaudio 
provincialum Christianorum acceptus fuit ille nuntius, etiam Rome, 
in capite imperli, esse qui eandem fidem profiterentur. Ambrosius: 
Qui non crediderant, poterant credere horum exemplo: facile enim 
facit inferior, quod fieri viderit a priore. ‘Theodoret observes, that 
the fame of the faith of the Romans could be easily spread, in con- 
sequence of the frequent visits which the inhabitants of the various 
provinces made to the capital. 

V. 9. In attestation of the sincerity of his grateful feelings, he ap- 
peals to God’s knowledge of his heart, Admirably Chrysostom; 


40 CHAPTER I. V. 9. 


᾿Επειδὴ ἔλεγεν O70 ἀγαπὼ ὑμᾶς, καὶ σημεῖον ἐποιεῖτο Vo διηνεκῶς εὐχεσθαιν» 
χαὶ τὸ δούλεσθαν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς αὐτοὺς; καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο δῆλον ἦν; ἐπὶ THY ἀξιό- 
πιστὸν καταφεύγει μαξτυξίαν. ἄρα δυνήσεταί TUS ἡμῶν καυχήσασθαι, ὅτυ 
μέμνηται Ent τῆς οἰκίας εὐχόμενος; τοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας πληξώματος; οὐκ 
οὕμαυ. ἀλλ᾽ ὃ Παῦλος οὐκ ὑπὲρ πόλεως μιὰς» ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲξ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἅπά- 
σης προσήει τῷ Θεῷ; καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ δεύτερον, οὐδὲ τρίτον, ἀλλὰ 
διηνεκὼς. ὡς δὲ τὸ διηνεκῶς ἐν μνήμη τινὰ περιφέξευν, οὐκ ἂν γένουτο εὖ μὴ 
ἀπὸ ἀγάπης πολλῆς" τὸ ἐν εὐχαῖς yae ἔχειν, καὶ ἀδιαλεύπτως yew, ἐννόησον 
πόσης εστί διαθέσεως καὶ φιλίας. Melancthon: Hee que hic dicit pro- 
desse nobis tanquam exempla possunt, quomodo doctores debeant 
esse soliciti pro ecclesiis. 

ᾧ λατρεύω. The Apostle is proceeding to describe what a lively 
concern he felt in his heart for the spiritual welfare of the church of 
Rome; in order, however, to justify himself in this respect, as per- 
haps the thought again suggested itself, that his cares might be 
deemed unauthorized, he subjoins, that such zeal and diligence for 
the conversion of all was no more than his duty as a servant of the 
Gospel. λατεεύω in the Septuagint for Nw and 72y denotes every 
performance by which a man thinks to please God, whether it be 
an observance of religious worship, or an action of any other kind 
done for God’s sake. Comp. John xvi.2. Theodoret: εἴδη xavecias 
πολλά. καὶ γὰρ ὃ πξοσευχομένος Θεῷ» AUTLEVEL, καὺ ὃ νηστείῳ χρώμενος; καὶ 
ὃ τοῖς θείοις τἱδοσέχων λογίοις, καὶ μέντου χαὺ ὃ τῆς τῶν ξένων θεραίείας 
ἐπιμελούμενος. 

With this must be joined ἐν τῷ ἐυαγγελίῳν here signifying the work 
of preaching the Gospel. ‘The office of preaching the Apostle re- 
gards under the New Testament, as in some sort a sacerdotal func- 
tion of worship, see 15, 16. The supplement ἐν τῷ πνεύματι 15 
susceptible of two applications, which may perhaps, however, be 
combined. ‘The Apostle may mean to express the deep inward de- 
votion with which he prosecutes the great work of preaching salva- 
tion; from which view, there would then result, with still greater 
force, the truth of the protestation he afterwards makes, as to the 
serious concern he feels for the spiritual welfare of the Romans. In 
this case, the passage would be a parallel one to 2 Tim. i. 3, where 
he attributes to himself a λατρεύειν ἐν καθαξᾷ ovvecdyoe, and also to 
Ep. vi. 6. Beza: Plane volens, ex animo illi addictus. Or perhaps 


* After having declared his affection for them, and adduced in proof of it 
his incessant prayers in their behalf, and desire to visit them, this not being 
apparent, he has recourse to a credible testimony. Can any among yon 
boast that in his private supplications he remembers the fulness of the church? 
I trow not; and yet Paul invoked God, not for a single city, but for the whole 
world, not once, twice, or thrice, but continually. Now as to bear one about 
in the memory, can only proceed from strong affection, think what devotion 
and friendship it argues, to remember one in prayer; and to do so without 
ceasing! 

+ There are many kinds of worship. He worships who prays to God, and 
he who fasts, and he who studies the sacred Scriptures, and even he who dis- 
charges the duties of hospitality. 


CHAPTER I. v. 10. 41 


the Apostle here adverts to the difference betwixt his former Jewish 
piety, which consisted more in external religious rites, and his 
present state. ‘The expression would then signify ‘in an inward 
and spiritual manner,” and be parallel to Phil. ili. 3, Ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἢ 
περιτομὴν οἱ πνεύματι Θεῷ λατρεύοντες. So the older commentators, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrosius, and others. But there is nothing 
to prevent us supposing that in the lively conception of Paul both of 
these ideas found place. 

ὡς ἀδιαλείπτως μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαυ. Chrysostom: Καὶ doxec μὲν ἕν 
τι λβγειν, τέσσαρα δὲ τίθησιν ἔναυθα. καὶ OTL μέμνηται; καὶ ore ἀδιαλείσιτως, 
wae Ort ἐν εὐχαῖς» κοὶὺ OTL ὑπὲξ μεγάλων πεαγμάτων δεόμενος. ἢ ‘There are 
numerous passages which evince the profound concern with which 
the Apostle bore upon his heart the welfare of the churches, holding 
out an example to Christian pastors that is too rarely imitated. 1 
Thess. 1. 3, ii. 11, iii. 17, 2 Tim. i. 1—3. How moving is this 
ardour of affection in one, who, assaulted by so many afllictions of 
his own, could speak of himself as Paul does! 2 Cor. ii. 29. 

V. 10. The Apostle is not satisfied with attesting that he often 
thinks of the Romans, he desires also to see them, nor does he merely 
desire this, but often makes it the subject of his prayers. His ardent 
wish to visit Rome must have been kindled, partly by the animating 
intelligence, that the Roman Christians were rejoicing so greatly in 
the faith, partly by the consideration, how important it would be if 
Christianity were firmly established in the metropolis. And we may 
well believe, that, attracted on the one hand by the desire of behold- 
ing the brethren, and on the other, by a sense of the importance of 
Rome as a missionary station, the Apostle often supplicated that this 
favour might be allowed him. 

δεόμενος. Admirably Chrysostom: ᾿Εφύλευ piv yae αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἠπεί- 
ETO πρὸς αὐτούς; οὐ μὴν; ἐπειδὴ ἐφίλει, maga τὸ τῷ θεὼ Soxovy ἐδούλετο 
ἰδεῖν. ine ἢ γνησίῳ ἀγάπη, οὐχ ὡς ἡμεῖς οὗ ἀμφοτέρωθεν τῶν νόμων τῆς 
ἀγάπης ἐχπίπιτοντες. ἣ γὰρ οὐδένω φιλοῦμεν» ἢ Emevdav φιλήσωμέν ποτ Ey παξὰ 
τὸ τῷ Θεῷ δοχοὺν φιλοῦμεν.ἵ 

εὐτίως ἤδη ποτέ. ‘The πὼς denotes the uncertainty; ἤδη the urgency 
of the Apostle’s desire, which is enhanced by ποτέ. MKypke: Vocula 
ἤδη ποτὲ ingens desiderium aut mali alicujus pertinacioris avertendi, 
aut boni diu expectati obtinendi significat. 

εὐδοὺν means Ist, prosperum iter habere; 2dly, prosperum esse. 
It is found in both meanings in the LXX., and has here the sense of 
to be prospered and favoured by God. Happily rendered by Gro- 


* In seeming to say but one thing, he here says four, that he makes men- 
tion of them, that he does so in his prayers, that he does so without ceasing, 
and that it is for great blessings that he supplicates. 

+ He loved them, and was hastening to them, but notwithstanding his love, 
if contrary to the will of God, he had no desire to see them. This is the 
genuine kind of affection. How different from us, who transgress on both 
hands the laws of love; by either not loving at all, or if we love, by loving 
contrary to God’s pleasure. 


42 CHAPTER I. -v. 11. 


tius: “Si forte Dei voluntas felicitatem mihi indulgeat, ad vos ve- 
niendi. In 2 Maccabees x. 23, it is used in the same import, τῷ εὖο- 
δώσαντι καθαξφισθῆναι, * who graciously permitted us to be cleansed.” 
In the phrase ἐν τῷ θελήματι the ἐν is like the Hebrew 3 by or 
through. 

V.11. Here the Apostle states the reason of his desire to make a 
journey to Rome. Well might Theodoret say of this 11th and 12th 
Verse, ταπεινοῦ φρονήματος εἰξημένα μεστά. He affectionately declares 
that the object of his journey was the spiritual invigoration of the 
Roman Christians, or rather, as he subjoins, in limitation of the ex- 
pression, to establish them in what they already possess. Nay, he 
wishes not to appear only as one conferring a benefit, but desires to 
have his own faith strengthened by his intercourse with them. Thus, 
in these words he unites both humility and love, and removes every 
possible suspicion of spiritual usurpation. 

χάρισμα πνευματικόν. Many of the commentators have given a very 
strained interpretation of this simple phrase. Bengel and Michaelis 
deem that it refers to the power of working miracles, arguing from 
the circumstance, that the Apostle, at the time he wrote, was present 
in the Corinthian church, then richly endowed with this gift. Au- 
gustine thinks that χάρισμα means the love of our neighbour, as if 
the Christianized Jews were not to grudge the gospel to the heathen. 
Ambrosius infers from the words, that the Romans were’ previously 
commended only for having, in a general manner, embraced the faith, 
that as yet, however, they did not possess faith of the genuine kind, 
but were cleaving to righteousness by works, and that he uses yéeuo- 
μα πνευματιχὸν to denote spiritual righteousness. But even if it 
were not self-evident, the twelfth verse would show, that there is 
nothing in all this. What the Apostle there hopes to obtain from 
his brethren, is what he also hopes to be able, on his part, to give to 
them, viz. the spiritual παφξάκλησις. The gospel itself, is elsewhere 
called τὰ πνευματικὰ, Eph. xv. 27, 1 Cor. ix. 11. 

εἰς τὸ στηφιχθῆναυ ὑμας. It is not necessary to conclude from this 
expression, as both ancient and modern commentators have done, 
comparing chapter xiv. 21, that the Roman Christians were still very 
weak in faith. For then we should be forced to infer from verse 12th, 
that the apostle was so likewise. Στηφιχθῆναν does not refer to an 
increase of knowledge, but to a more lively and cheerful acceptation 
of what they already knew,—to that more vigorous excitement of 
spiritual life, which is always the consequence of intercourse among 
men of congenial sentiments in religion. It is consequently unneces- 
sary to give to στηξιχθῆναν that collateral signification which Theo- 
doret mentions; οὐ yae ἑτέραν ὑμῖν διδασκαλίαν πεοσφέξειν, ἀλλὰ τὴν 
ἤδη πεοσενεχθεισαν βεβαιώσασθαν βούλομαι; καὶ τοῖς ἡδη φυτενθεῖσι φυτοῖς" 
τὴν ἀφδειαν προσενεγκεὺν.ἕ 

*T wish not to bring among you another doctrine, but to establish that 


which has been already brought, and water the plants which were planted 
before. 


CHAPTER I. v. 12, 13. 43 


V. 12. τοῦτο δέ ἐστι. By this epanorthosis the Apostle gives his 
words a still humbler and more affectionate turn, placing himself on 
a footing of entire equality with the members of the church, for the 
purpose of yet farther softening the στηξυχθήναι" which kind charien- 
tismus, Erasmus, somewhat too strongly, calls pia vafrities et sancta 
adulatio. Sadoletus: Prius tanquam prebiturus illis, ex se et sua in 
fidem Christi constantia solatium, post mitigat orationem, ne velut 
censor et magister loqui videretur, paremque sese et unum de illis 
facit. 

The συμπαφακληθῆναν depends on ἐπυποθὼ. Among the Athenians, 
παρμαχαλεῖν meant fo summon, invite, impel; in the Greek of later 
times, fo sepplicate, exhort; among the Hellenists, to soothe, com- 
fort, cheer, instruct. (See Knapp. Scripta, p. 124.) Several, and 
among others Beza, give too exclusive prominence to the sense of 
instruction: Quum omnes ex parte cognoscamus, non dubium, quin 
et illi ex Paulo partim multa intelligere, partim ea que intelligebant 
accuratius cognoscere, et Paulus etiam ipse, quantumvis excellens, ab 
ecclesia ill’ tum erudiri magis atque magis, tum confirmari etiam 
docendo potuerit. ‘This view is much too partial. The sense to be 
preferred is to refresh, stir up, which is always the fruit of social 
intercourse between men of vital religion, 2 Cor. vil. 7. ‘Theodoret: 
ov γὰρ μόνον δοῦναν βούλομαι; αλλὰ καὶ λαβεῖν wae” ὑμῶν. παρακαλεῖ δὲ 
χαὶ διδάσκαλον, ἡ ἡ πεοθυμία τῶν μαθητων.ὃ Calvin: Fidei alacritas— 
vide in quantam moderationem se submittat plum pectus, quod non 
recusat a rudibus tirunculis confirmationem petere. Neque tamen 
simulanter loquitur, siquidem nemo est adeo inops in ecclesia Christi, 
qui non possit aliquid in profectum nostrum momenti afferre, sed 
impedimur superbia, quominus talem ultro citroque fructum colliga- 
mus. We must not, however, suppose that mere communication by 
words is here meant; there is also implied that inexplicable imme- 
diate action of spirit upon spirit, which takes place wherever there 
is a fellowship in love, and more especially among Christians. 

V. 13. The Aposile did not cherish an empty wish; that wish 
had become a purpose. Admirably Chrysostom: ὅτυ μὲν ἐκωλύθη, 
λέγει, διὰ τί δὲ, οὐκέτι. οὐ yae ἐξετάζει τοῦ δεσπότου τὸ πξόσταγμα; ἀλλὰ 
πείθεταν μόνον. καίτοιγε εἰκὸς ἦν διαπορήσαι, τίνος ἕνεκεν πόλιν οὕτω 
λαμπεὰν καὶ μεγάλην, καὶ πρὸς ἣν ἅπασα ἔβλεπεν ἡ οἰκουμένην ἐκώλυσεν ὃ 
Θεὸς ἀπολαῦσαν διδασκάλου τουούτου, καὶ ἐπὺ χρόνον τοσοῦτον. ὃ μὲν yae 
τῆς REATOVONS πόλεως πεῤρυγενόμενος; καὶ τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ῥᾳδίως ἐπήει. ὃ 
δὲ τὴν βασιλικωτέφαν ἀφεὶς, τοῖς δὲ ὑπηκόους ἐφεδρεύων, τὸ κεφάλαιον εἶχεν 
ἠμελημένον. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐδὲν τούτων πεξιεργάζεται, GARG παραχωρεῖ τῷ 
τὴς MEovoras ἀχαταλήπτῳ, τό τε ἐμμελὲς ἐπιδειχνύμενος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς» 
καὶ παιδεύων πάντας yyas μηδέποτε τὸν Θεὸν ἀπαιτεῖν εὐθύνας τῶν γινομ- 
évav, κἂν δοχῇ πολλοὺς θορυδεῖν τὰ πεαττόμενα. «- - ++ «πάλιν δὲ δὲ ἑτέρων 
ἐνδείκνυται τὴν ἀγάπην; οὐδὲ γὰρ, ἐπειδὴ ἐκωλύθην, φησιν; ἀπέστην τοῦ 


* My desire is not merely to bestow, but to receive in my turn from you. 
The alacrity of the scholars is a stimulus even to the master. 


44 CHAPTER I. v. 13. 


ἐπιχειρεῖν; ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ μὲν ἐπεχείρουν, Gel δὲ ἐκωλυόμην; οὐδέποτε δὲ ἀφιστάμην» 
τῷ μὲν θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐχ ἀντυπίτιτων, τὴν δὲ ἀγάπην τηρῶν. At 
what time he began to cherish that wish, and first formed the often 
renewed purpose, cannot be given with precision. In chap. xv. 23, 
he speaks of having done so for many years, perhaps from the period 
when Aquila and Priscilla were banished from Rome, and came to 
him with the intelligence of the establishment of the church in that 
place. 

καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι tov δεῦξο is to be regarded as parenthetical. ‘The 
καὶ is adversative, like the Hebrew}, and equivalent to xo zee, John 11]. 
13, 32, villi. 55. ‘The hindrance lay in the circumstance of so many 
other places so imperatively demanding his ministrations. In the 
Acts, St. Luke occasionally alludes to an inward impulse, urging the 
Apostle to go, or restraining him from going, to a particular place. 
The reason here alleged for his desire to visit Rome, is the same as 
in the 11th verse. It is not necessary however, on that account, to 
put, as some expositors have done, upon xaezdv ἔχειν the sense fruc- 
tum offerre. As Kypke shows, ἔχειν has rarely the same import as 
παξέχειν. Chrysostom justly observes, that the expression xaezov 
ἔχειν emanates, as before, from the affectionate humility of Paul, who 
wished to represent the instructing and confirming of the Roman 
church, which is the χαφπὸς» in that point of view from which the 
contemplation of it was dear and agreeable to himself. ἔχευν in mani- 
fold collocations with τιμὴν, δόξαν, &c. signifies assequi, and so here. 
Moreover, from modesty, he merely says xaeztov ruvd. 

καὶ ty μιν. Καὶ is here emphatic. ‘The Apostle alludes to the 
fact, that in all the regions where, as mentioned, chap. xv. 18, 19, 
he had proclaimed the gospel, it had manifested his efficacy. Sub- 
lime are the words of Chrysostom. od νῦν οἱ σοφοὶ τῶν “Ἑλλήνων; οὗ 
τοὺς βαθεῖς πώγωνας ἔλκοντες» καὶ Tas ἐξωμίδας ἀναβεβλημένοιν καὺ τὼ με- 
γάλα φυσῶντες; τὴν “Eanada, τὴν Βάρβαξον πᾶσαν 6 σκηνοποιὸς ἐπέστξεψεν. 
ὁ δὲ παῤ αὐτοῖς ἀγόμενος καὶ πεξιφεξόμενος Πλάτων; τρίτον; εἰς Σικελίαν 
ἐλθὼν μετὼ TOV κόμπου τὼν ῥημάτων ἐκείνων, μετὰ τῆς ὑπολήψεως τῆς λαμ- 
MAS, οὐδὲ ἑνὸς περιεγένετο τυδάννου; ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἀθλίως ἀπήλλαξεν, ὡς καὶ 


* He says, that he had been hindered, but he does not say why; for it is 
not his way to scrutinize, but to obey the commandment of the master. And 
yet there was room to doubt, on what account it was, that for so long a period 
God prevented that mighty and splendid city, to which the eyes of the whole 
habitable globe were turned, from profiting by so great a master. For when 
once the capital is reduced, it is easy to invade the towns that are subject to 
it; whereas he who leaves the royal city alone, to besiege the inferior places, 
is guilty of neglecting that which is most important. Paul, however, does not 
curiously search into such things, but submits to the inscrutability of Provi- 
dence; thereby both showing the moderation of his mind, and teaching us 
never to question God about the reasons of what he does, although his dis- 
pensations may seem to trouble many...And again, he shows them his love 
in another way. For I did not, he says, when hindered, desist from my 
attempt. My efforts were made commensurate with my hindrances, and I 
never abandoned them, thus neither resisting the will of God, nor failing in 
charity to you. 


CHAPTER I. v. 14. 45 


αὐτῆς ἐχπεσεῖν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. ὃ δὲ σκχηνοποιὸς οὗτος οὐ Σιχελίαν μόνον, 
οὐδὲ ᾿Ιταλίαν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν ἐπέδξαμε τὴν οἰχουμένην, καὶ οὐδέ ἐν τῷ κηξύτ- 
τειν τῆς τέχνης ἀπέστη: ἀλλὰ xo τότε SéCuata ἔῤῥαπτεν καὶ ἐξγαστηξῖου 
προειστήχει" καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐσχανδάλυσε τοὺς ἐξ ὑπάτων.ἢ 

V. 14. Here, as was remarked so early as by Origen, there is 
difficulty in the construction. The easiest way would be to take 
verse 14 entirely by itself, and then consider ofza—v. 15—as refer- 
ring to it, in the sense of consequently, wherefore. It is true, that 
οὕτω alone has not this signification; stillit may have it, if, in a fore- 
going clause, a silent χαθὼς be understood, as in Matt. v.16. The 
Ἕλλησί ve καὶ Baepaegors, however, appears too obviously to be an 
apposition to ἔθνεσιν" and as, moreover, σοφοὺς ve καὶ ἄνοήτοις is like- 
wise an apposition to Ἕλλησί τε καὶ βαφβάξοις, we must construe the 
whole 14th verse with ἔθνεσιν, and then the words, from χαθὼς as far 
aS ὀφειλέτης εἰ μιν WOUld be the premises to which verse 15th forms the 
conclusion. Itis thus that Origen construes and translates: Propo- 
sui venire ad vos, ut fructum aliquem haberem etiam inter vos, sed 
prohibitus sum usque adhuc; sicut in ceteris gentibus, quibus debitor 
sum, ita quantum in me est, paratus sum etiam vobis, qui Rome estis, 
evangelizare. ‘This is a collocation, however, which a more minute 
consideration of verse 13 will disincline us to adopt. In that verse, 
the xai ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν 15 too closely connected with ἐν ὑμῶν to be 
separated without violence; and were we, nevertheless, to choose to 
begin a new sentence with χαθὼς, then the xa: which follows it would 
be totally superfluous, and the construction of ὀφειλέτης εἰμὴ with ἐν 
would create a new, and though not, perhaps, insurmountable diffi- 
culty, still one so great as to have made Origen think it necessary to 
complete the phrase by the insertion of ozs, the relative in the dative 
plural, before ὀφειλέτης. ‘The conclusion is, that there is no other 
outlet, but to suppose, with the Greek scholia, that the Apostle has 
here deviated from the right construction, and that he refers the οὕτω 
in the 15th verse to the χαθὼς in the 13th, as if he deemed he had 
there written a ὥστε before the χαθὼς, and instead of ἐν τοῖς λόιποὺὶς 
ἔθνεσιν, the bare dative without the preposition. Whoever is inclined 
to seek, in outward occasions, the cause of a negligent construction, 
(the only source of which, however, was undoubtedly the liveliness 
of the Apostle’s character,) may imagine that Paul was here called 
away, and that upon resuming his pen, he supposed that he had 
begun a new sentence with χαθώς. 


* Where are now those Grecian sages, with their long beards and tunics 
and lofty pretensions? Greece and the whole country of the barbarians, have 
been converted by the tent-maker. Even Plato, whom they so much boast 
of and applaud, although he thrice visited Sicily, was unable, with all his 
pomp of language and splendid reputation, to overcome a single tyrant; but, 
on the contrary, escaped with such difficulty as even to lose his freedom. 
Whereas, this maker of tents has compassed not Sicily alone, nor Italy, but 
the whole world. Nor, while he preached, did he leave off his trade, but still 
continued to sew his skins and mind his shop; at which men of rank took no 
offence. 


46 CHAPTER I. v. 14, 15. 


Ἕλλησί ve καὶ βαρβάροις. It is asked, whether the Apostle here 
classes the Romans with the Greeks or with the barbarians. Many, 
such as Bengel and Heumann, embrace the first opinion, and many, 
as Krebs and Wolf, the second. If we appeal to the use and wont 
of language, that is decisive as to the fact, that the Greeks, under the 
term βάρβαφοι, comprehended even the Romans. Philo always gives 
them that name, and Plautus himself calls Italy Barbaria, and the 
Latin barbara lingua. Notwithstanding, however, it would not be 
justifiable to assume that Paul here does the same. The point of 
discrimination is not, who spoke the Greek, and who the other lan- 
guages, but, as is denoted by the succeeding epexegesis of cope τε 
xai ἄνοητοι, Who did, and who did not, possess the Grecian civiliza- 
tion? and if the difference of civilization be indeed the point regarded, 
then there cannot be a doubt, that the Romans were comprehended 
with the civilized—the “Ἕλληνες. ‘This seems even to be implied in 
what the Apostle gives us to understand, in verse 16, viz. that seeing 
it was the seat of Grecian refinement and culture, he might well have 
entertained scruples about appearing at Rome. Perhaps, however, 
the opinion of Koppe may be most safely adopted, viz. that the 
Apostle, when he used “Ἑλλησί τε καὶ BagBagors never thought of the 
Romans at all, but that he merely gives an epexegesis of πάντα τὰ 
ἕθνη, and that he first adverted to them at σοφοί τε καὶ ἀνόητοι» With 
the former of whom, as appears from the 16th verse, he indisputably 
classes them. Leaving the Romans out of view, he had already 
preached to other and these rude βάφβαξου, viz. the Lycaonians and 
I}lyrians. 

σοφοῖς καὶ ἀνοήτοις. These two adjectives specify not the natural 
capacity, but the existing condition, the educated and the uneducated. 
Erasmus: eruditi et rudes. Beza, and others suppose that a diseri- 
mination is intended between the individuals of a nation; but it is 
better to refer it to different nations. Grotius: Monstrat apostolus ita 
omnibus hominibus aptatum esse Evangelium, ut nee stupidos con- 
temnat, nec ab ingeniosis contemni debeat. 

ὀφειλέτης εἰμί. Justly Theodoret: πᾶσιν ὀφείλω τῆς διδασκαλίας τὸ 
χρέος. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 16, Where the Apostle says he was 
bound, yea that necessity was laid upon him, to preach the gospel. 
Koppe’s translation is totally erroneous. He makes ὀφειλέτης εἰμο 
τινὶ, bene meritus est alter de me. 

V. 15. οὕτω we refer back to χαθώς. 

τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ may relate to the circumstance he had just mentioned, 
of God having put obstacles in his way. If taken in this sense, it 
behoves to be translated as if it were τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ, quantum in me est. 
So 2d Esdras vi. 11, Kai 6 οἶκος τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ ποιηθήσεται" and so Adlian, 
Var. Hist. L. 1.§ 32. In this case, however, πρόθυμον would want ' 
its substantive and subject, although in Latin the phrase can be so 
formed as that the quantum in me est itself appears as subject. Gro- 
tius: Quod mez est potestatis paratum est. We must here regard 
the xaz’ ἐμὲ as a circumlocution for wou, and resolve the phrase into 


CHAPTER I. v. 16. 47 


τὸ πρόθυμόν μου ἐστὶν, Which is similar to ἐγὼ πεόθυμον ἔχω. For this 
last, see Euripid. Iphig. in Taur. v. 989, τὸ πρόθομον would thus 
stand for ἡ πεοθυμία. Still the τὸ xar’ ἐμὲ may be considered a direct 
eircumlocution for ἐγὼ, in like manner as τἀμά and τὸ ἐμὸν Sometimes 
are. And then πρόθυμον would be its predicate. We might also, in 
this case, compare with it ra nae’ ἐμοὺ, as used for ἐγὼ, and the com- 
plete τὸ xar’ ἐμαυτοῦ μέξος, in Tyrius (Diss. vi. p. 59;) where, how- 
ever, it must be confessed, Schiifer ad Bos Ellipses Grece, and 
others, remove xara from the text. ‘The circumstance on which the 
duty of the Apostle, in respect of the Romans, is made to hinge, is 
their being highly civilized. Lying as he did, under equal obliga- 
tions to preach the doctrine of the cross to wise and polished nations, 
as to the rude Illyrians, the Apostle was bound to go to Rome. 

V. 16. οὐ yae ἐπαισχύνομαυ, has a reference to the σοφοί. When 
Paul, who was in his external aspect mean, and, though esteemed 
among his countrymen for his skill in the law, wholly unknown to 
the heathen—when Paul, despised for his deficiency in Greek refine- 
ment, no less than because he was a Jew, was called to make his 
appearance in Rome, the far-famed city, where all the wisdom of the 
old world, combined with the highest profligacy and insolence, of 
which a race perverted by false culture is capable, where the Roman 
pride of power was associated with the darkness of Greek philoso- 
phy, and the humility of the gospel had to encounter the exclusive 
arrogance of the Jews on the subject of their revelation,—when such 
a person, and in such a place, required to speak of the Saviour and 
King of men, appearing in the form of a servant, coming despised 
into a world in which he had not where to lay his head, and after 
publishing a kingdom which was likewise not of this world, depart- 
ing from it with a crown of thorns upon his brow; how should not 
fear and trembling have overwhelmed the man of God? But as Jesus 
had not been of this world, so neither was he. The hatred it had 
shown to his master, he knew it must show to himself; and there- 
fore he was not ashamed. Comp. 2'Tim. i. 8—12, which was writ- 
ten in chains. Even in the Imperial palace, he did not blush for the 
divine message. Phil. i. 13. He alone has power to overcome the 
world, whom the world has not overcome. 

εὐαγγέλιον tov Χειστοῦ. Χειστοῦ is here genitivus objecti, and must 
be rendered the gospel concerning Christ, i. 6. whose chief subject 
is Christ. 


48 CHAPTER I. v. 16. 


PART (Li. 
THESIS. v. 16 AND 17. 


V. 16. While the Apostle points to the nature of the gospel, as the 
reason for his not being ashamed to propound it to mankind, he states 
in so doing, the Thesis of his whole Epistle, which he afterwards 
demonstrates, in regard both to the heathen and the Jews. 

δύναμις yae Θεον ἐστιν εἰς σωτηξίαν, per meton. effectus pro appella- 
tione cause, (Glass. philol. sacra, p. 1450.) John xii. 50, xvii. 3. The 
gospel exerts a power which conducts man to blessedness, 1 Cor. i. 18. 
Admirably says Theodoret: ἐκ ταύτης yae ot πιστεύσαντες τὴν σωτηξίαν 
τευγῶσιν. οὕτω καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πολλὰ κεχρυμμένην ἔχεν τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνέφ- 
γειαν. καὶ yae τὸ πέπερυ ψυχρὰν μὲν ἔχευ τὴν περιφάνειαν, καὶ τοῖς ἀγνοοῦ- 
συν οὐδεμίαν δείχνυσυ θεεμότητος ἔμφασιν. ὁ δὲ τοῖς ὀδοῦσι λεπτύνας» τῆς 
πυροειδοὺς θεομότητος δέχεταν τὴν αἰσθησυιν.---τοὕύτω καὶ ὃ σίτος δυναταῦ 
μὲν ELVAL καὶ ῥίζα, καὶ καλάμην καὶ ἀσταχυς" οὐ Φαίνεταυ δὲ τοιοῦτος: πρὺν 
εἰς τὰς αὔλακας κατασπαξήναυ τῆς γῆς. ἢ The condition of this divine 
efficacy on the part of man is πίστις. Grotius: Sicut medicamentum 
non prodest nisi haustum, ita nec evangelium nisi fides habeatur. 
Henceforward, through the whole composition, from every point of 
view, and under all forms, the Apostle repeats the great truth, with 
which he was himself penetrated, and which forms the central point 
of his doctrine, viz. that the entire sanctification and pardon of man 
has its ground, not in what he originates within himself, but in what 
he obtains from God. πίστις is a spiritual impulse founded in the 
moral and religious nature of man. Whatever, in virtue of this prin- 
ciple, a man receives, must become vital within him, and determine 
his whole mind. ‘The sense accordingly is, ‘‘ this doctrine begets a 
power in man, which leads to salvation, from the moment he receives 
it, 7. 6. admits it into his inward consciousness, experiences in him- 
self its truth.”’ 

᾿Ιουδαίῳ τε πεῶτον καὶ Ἕλλην. ‘The observation of Chrysostom is 
just. Paul himself declares that neither circumcision availeth any- 
thing nor uncircumcision, why then does he give precedence to the 
Jews? οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπειδὴ πρωτὸς ἐστι, καὶ πλέον ramBaver τῆς χάριτος. 


* For from it those who believe derive salvation. In the same way, many 
sensible objects have their innate efficacy concealed. Pepper, for instance, 
appears outwardly to be cold, and to those unacquainted with it, shows no 
semblance of heat. But let one grind it with his teeth, and he perceives that 
it is hot like fire—Thus also a grain of corn may contain a root and stalk 
and ear, but that does not become manifest, until it is sown in the furrows of 
the earth. 


CHAPTER I. ν. 17. 49 


Ἢ γάρ αὐτὴ Saeed xat τούτῳ κἀκείνῳ δύδοταυν ἀλλὰ τάξεώς ἔστι τιμὴ μόνον 
τὸ πεῶτος.Σ As our Saviour first addressed his preaching to the 
Jews, and was imitated in this respect by the Apostles, so here could 
Paul also represent the gospel as a method of salvation intended, in 
tH first instance, for that nation. ‘The same expression, C. 11. 9, 10, 
Heumann rightly renders jirst of all, immediately. 

V.17. The radical theme of the Epistle is more particularly enu- 
merated in this verse, viz. that through the gospel, the justification of 
men is possible. But, as the acknowledgment that man needs justi- 
fication, depends upon the acknowledgment of his sinfulness and guilt, 
the Apostle takes up this subject in v. 18, and, as far as the end of 
the chapter, describes the state of moral depravity into which the hea- 
then had sunk. From the beginning of the second chapter, to the 
21st verse of the third, he gives a similar description of the Jews, 
and then infers, as the result, ‘‘ That a// men, those within the Old 
‘Testament Theocracy, and those out of it, are equally in want of 
salvation.” 

The γὰρ is to be translated ¢o wit, itexplains in how far the gospel 
is able to help man to salvation. 

Δικαιοσύνη Means originally the condition of one who has done all 
required of him by the law. ‘This signification had its source in 
the conception of a certain relation subsisting between two parties, @ 
covenant called δίκη. ‘The genitive Θεοῦ stands in place of what St. 
Paul commonly employs ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ; as it also does, chap. 11]. 
21,22. Among others, Origen and Osiander deem that the divine 
attribute of Justice is here meant; on which supposition, Θεοῦ would 
be the genitivus subjecti. ‘This does not, however, suit the context, 
seeing that the knowledge of God’s penal justice is for man, no δύναμυς 
εἰς σωτηδξίαν. Besides, διχαιοσύνη here forms an antithesis to the ἀσίο- 
χάλυψις τῆς ὀργῆς in v.18. It would be equally discordant with the 
meaning of the context, to adopt, with Chrysostom and Schittgen, 
what Paul rarely intends, the Helenistic sense of δυχαιοσύνην viz. cle- 
mency. Accordingly we thus expound, ‘'The gospel makes known 
a way to that perfect fulfilment of the law, which is required by 
God.” 

ἐν αὐτῷ in that gospel. 

ἀποχαλύτιτεται. Beza: Hoc ita intelligo, quasi Paulus non eo dun- 
iaxat nomine commendet evangelium, quod in eo retegatur, et spec- 
tandum proponatur, quod gentes quidem antea ignorabant, patres 
autem Judzi procul et umbris tectum intuebantur: sed etiam quod 
hance justificandi rationem ita proponat, ut nunc etiam re ipsa exhi- 
beat....itaque pro consuetudine Hebreorum cum antecedente intelli- 
gendum est consequens, id est, cum patefactione conjungendum est 
ipsius patefacte rei prestatio. Obviously, not the mere act of revela- 


* He does not by being first, receive a larger measure of grace. On one 
and all the same gift is bestowed. ‘The being first is but a distinction of 
order. 

7 


50 CHAPTER I. ν. 17. 


tion, per se, is here spoken of, but at the same time, the operation of 
the truth revealed, which, according to its inward nature, quickens 
and transforms all susceptible of its influence. 
tx πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. Expositors differ very widely in the mean-- 
ing they attach to these words. ‘The readiest way is to take the tWo 
nouns together, and understand them as a climax, This answers 
to the use of éx, which is especially employed to denote the transi- 
tion from one into another state; γελᾷν tx τῶν πρόσθεν Saxedwy" SO 
Heliod. Aeth. βάσιν tx βάσεως παξαμείδευν. 2 Cor. iil. 18, ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς 
δόξαν would then be a parallel passage. ‘Thus Theophylact: Οὐ yae 
ἀρκεῖ τὸ πρώτως πιστεῦσαι; GAN kx τῆς ἐισαγωγικῆς πίστεως Set ἡμᾶς owa- 
ϑαίνειν εἰς τὴν τελειοτέφξαν πῦστιν. Ὁ Clemens Alex. explains this more 
exactly (Strom. b. v. 6. 1,) where he says: There is ἃ xow mores 
xabanee Oeuéncos.t like that of which our Lord said, ** Thy faith hath 
made thee whole,” and a perfect faith, by which a man may remove 
mountains. Hence it was, that even the Apostles prayed, * Lord 
we believe, help thou our unbelief.”’ In like manner Melancthon, 
Beza, Calovius, Clericus, and others. Compare Glassius in his 
Philol. Sacra, p. 1027. Faith may certainly be regarded as in this 
manner progressive. ‘The more powerfully in any individual, the 
sense, on the one hand, of his spiritual want, and, on the other, of 
that harmony or blessedness which springs from a religious life, is 
awakened, the more lively will become the inward necessity, the 
impulse urging him to recognize as true the objective doctrines of 
religion. Neither can it be said, that this meaning is not sufficiently 
well based in the context. ‘The general design of the Apostle is to 
set forth, how in Christianity all depends, not upon what man origi- 
nates within himself, but upon the appropriation of an objective da- 
tum. Now this design is attained, if he shows that that appropriation 
is in its subject infinite, something which must undergo continual 
progressive increase, whereby the individual is ever more and more 
transformed into the objective truth. ‘The only other view of the 
passage, which recommends itself as worthy of attention, is that 
which couples x πίστεως with δυκανοσύνη, according as Bengel ex- 
ounds. ‘* Paul wishes to show, that in this message all rests upon 
faith: Fides est prora et puppis. Hence he says it is a righteousness 
of faith, indeed it only exists for faith.” So also Hammond and 
others. Rom. vi. 19, and 2 Cor. ii. 16, would afford some analogy. 
Nor can it be said, that the addition εἰς πίστιν would then be super- 
fluous, seeing that it lies in the Apostle’s intention, that the necessity 
of a subjective appropriation of the objective datum should be pro- 
minently set forth. ‘There is harshness, however, in the wide sepa- 
ration of πίστεως from δικαιοσύνην and if it be alleged that this is done 
to heighten the emphasis, by the juxtaposition of the double πίστις» 


* It is not sufficient to have believed at first. We must ascend from initial 
to more perfect faith. 
+ A common faith, and as it were fundamental. 


CHAPTER I. v. 17. 51 


it may be answered, that the same emphasis is likewise retained in 
the view previously stated. ‘To the other expositions of the passage, 
besides these two, it may be objected, either that they have too slen- 
der a basis in the context, or that they are too far-fetched. They are 
as follows; Ist, The first πίστις is a general faith in the truth of the 
gospel, the second, the special application of the same to the subject, 
**from a belief of the gospel’s revealing to man a way to fulfil the 
law, proceeds the belief, that by me also, the believing subject, this 
fulfilment of the law and justification before God is realized.’’ So 
Witsius and Sadoletus. But the two things cannot, in respect of 
time, be imagined as separate from each other. 2. The first πύστις is 
faith in the Old, the second, faith in the New Testament. ‘Thus Origen, 
Theodoret, Zegerus, and others. 3. Augustine: (De Spiritu et Lit- 
tera, c. 11,) Ex fide predicantium in fidem audientium. 4. Ex fide 
obscura in claram visionem in ce@lis. (Augustine Ques. Ev. 1. ii. 
c. 39. Bede.) 

καθὼς yéyeartrac’ 6 δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως δησεταυ- The pious Jew 
loved to use Bible phrases, in speaking of the things of common life, 
as this seemed to connect in a manner his personal observations and 
the events of his own history, with those of holy writ. ‘Thus, the 
Talmud contains numerous quotations introduced by such forms 
DDI or WANT WAIT or pian WNIT WIN * behold that is what 
stands written,”’ ‘‘ as says the verse,”’ without there being understood 
any real fulfilment of the text in the fact which is spoken of. ‘This 
practice was also followed by the Apostles. Acts xxviii. 25, Rom. 
Vill. 36, ix. 33, x. 5, xi. 26, xiv. 11. ‘These references to passages 
of the Old Testament often serve to indicate the deep analogy sub- 
sisting between that and the New, in so far as the latter, in outline and 
germ, was already contained in the former. So also in the present 
citation. In these words of the prophet, what is set forth as the 
characteristic of the just, is not the external opus operatum, but the 
inward disposition of faith and trust in God, that direct confidence 
in him transcending all reflection, of which Chrysostom on this pas- 
sage Says, Τοιαύτη yde ἡ τῶν λογισμὼν Φύσις" λαβυξίνθῳ Tod καὶ γείφους 
ἔοικεν; οὐδὲν οὐδαμοὺ τέλος ἔχουσα. οὐδὲ ἀφιείσα τὸν λογισμὸν ἑστάναυ ἐπὶ 
τῆς πέτρας." In the Prophet Habac. ii. 4, God, according to the 
LXX., declares, «‘'The man who flies from the coming calamities, to 
him will I not show favour, but the just shall live, that is, shall pros- 
per through his confidence in me.’ We have stiJl to observe, that 
the LXX. read éx πίστεώς μου, while in the original, the word is 
wns. Only Symmachus renders it exactly. ‘The genitive of the 
pronoun of the first person must then be considered as genitivus ob- 
jecti, for εἰς iué. Faith towards me. One codex and the Syrian 
also read this μοῦ. Several interpreters and editions insert a point 


* For such is the nature of reasonings. They are like a labyrinth or net, 
which has nowhere an end, and will not permit the judgment to rest upon the 
rock. 


< 


52 CHAPTER I. v. 17, 18. 


after πίστεως, Which makes the sense, ““ He who is justified by faith 
shall live.” ‘That the prophet did not so construe his 11282 is 
unquestionable; as little the LXX. their éx πίστεώς μου. It must, 
therefore, be assumed, that it was Paul himself, who, with the view 
of better adapting the declaration of the prophet to his subject, gave 
this violent construction to the translation of the Septuagint. But it 
is impossible to discover any grounds for his doing so, and so much 
the less, if, in the previous clause, the ἐκ πίστεως is not immediately 
connected with δικαιοσύνη. And, moreover, the declaration is highly 
pertinent when the ἐκ πίστεως is coupled with ζήσεται. Even Jews 
of later times know how to appreciate the worth of such faith. R. 
Schemtob upon Cant. iv. 8, thus speaks: Dicent Israelite canticum 
novum tempore futuro, Ps. xeviii. Cujus autem merito dicet Israel 
carmen? Merito Abrahami, quia credidit Deo, Gen. xv. Hee est 
fides in qua Israel possidet, de qua Scriptura dicit, Hab. 11. 


Pa Nic 


ELUCIDATION OF THE THESIS IN THE CASE OF THE HEATHEN, TAKING 
INTO VIEW THE SPECULATIVE ERRORS INTO WHICH THEY WERE LED 
BY PRACTICAL DEPRAVITY. v. 18—24. 


V. 18. Tue thought, that the revelation of the righteousness of 
God is a scheme so richly fraught with blessings for all mankind, 
pre-supposes that all men stand in need of it, and that their sinfulness 
is so great, as to make the communication of this righteousness from 
a source above, absolutely indispensable to them. Accordingly, the 
Apostle now proceeds to demonstrate that. And, in the first place, he 
shows that the heathen are chargeable with the most complete aliena- 
tion from God, and have thereby become obnoxious to the divine 
éeyn- This alienation discovers itself in the obscuration of their 
knowledge of the Divine Being, which has led them to substitute in 
place of the true and holy God, the most contemptible idols as the 
object of their worship. Such a deviation from right views of what 
God is can only arise from the want of religious and moral life in the 
heart. It afterwards acts, however, reciprocally as a cause leading 
to a still wider departure from God. 

’Oey7 Θεοῦ 15 equal to Sixacoxercia, chap. ii. 5. ‘The word is an- 
thropopathic, and is well explained by Damien Orthod. fidei ]. i. v. 14. 
--- Οεγὴν καὶ θυμὸν ἐννοοῦμεν τὴν πρὸς THY κακίαν ἀπέχθειάν τε καὺ ἀποσ- 
TeOPHY’ καὶ YA ἡμεῖς» τὰ ἐναντία τῆς γνώμης μυσοῦντες» ὀδγιζόμεθα, ‘The 
wrath of God is that relation of God to evil, in virtue of which, he 
leaves it, in so far as it resists him, to itself, whereby it becomes a 
prey to misery. ‘This abandonment to itself, entailing as it does 


CHAPTER I. v. 18. 53 


wretchedness, is consequently a penalty. Hence, 6ey7 was anciently 
interpreted as synonymous with τυμωξία and χόλασις. See Suicer, 
she Vs 
’Anoxariarera ἀπ᾽ otgavov. Previously the Apostle had spoken 
of the ἀποχάλυψις of the divine righteousness. In antithesis to this, 
he now places another ἀποχάλυψιυς, that of wrath, by which the former 
is rendered necessary. Now the question here is, by what means 
this second ἀποκάλυψις is brought about? As it stands, like an anti- 
strophe, on a parallel with the other, it might be fairly deemed that 
in this instance, also, the Apostle meant a revelation effected by the 
Gospel. It is the general doctrine of Scripture, that by the instru- 
mentality of the Holy Spirit, the knowledge of sin, and the sense of 
guilt are awakened in man. Christ reckons it expressly among the 
operations of that Divine Being, that he reproves the world of sin, 
Sohn xvi. 8,9. Christianity also teaches in the most distinct man- 
ner the doctrine of a future judgment, Rom. ii. 6; xiv. 10. The im- 
port of the passage might, therefore, be: ‘* By the same gospel men 
are brought to the knowledge of the penal justice of the Supreme 
Being.” It may, however, be questioned, whether the Apostle does 
not rather here appeal to the sense of guilt, which, apart from the 
gospel, is always to be found in man. ‘The persons, whom he has 
in view, are such as were presently destitute of belief in the gospel, 
and his object is to guide them to the acknowledgment of their want 
of it; besides, that he pre-supposed in the heathen an inward sense 
of their guilt and of God’s penal justice, appears from verse 32. And 
how strong in fact were the manifestations which they frequently 
gave of that sentiment, and to what severe penances did they resort 
in order to satisfy their awakened conscience, and attain to a state of 
reconciliation with the δαίμων! This is especially attested by Plu- 
tarch in his admirable treatise Meei Δευσιδαυμονίας. If such be the 
meaning, the passage would require to be interpreted as follows: 
“ You cannot disown the consciousness which God has implanted in 
your breast, that his retributive justice extends to all that is sin.” 
Equally in both cases may the phrase ἀπ᾽ oveavos be viewed asa 
figurative expression, for the origin of the revelation in question. 
The superiority of God to every limitation, and to all the sin and evil 
of this world, we are wont, in compliance with a certain natural in- 
stinct to which even the heathen were not strangers—(See Pseudo 
Aristot. de Mundo, |. i. 6. 1. Beza: In celo natura duce Deum 
querimus,) to denote, by conceiving him as placed in some upper 
region elevated above the earth. Accordingly, in conformity with 
the second view, we might here paraphrase the expression ‘* Emanat- 
ing from the higher invisible economy, the presentiment of the di- 
vine justice enters our minds.”? The first of these elucidations has 
been adopted by Jerome, (Comm. in Abacue. |. 2, 6. 3,) Erasmus, 
and Grotius; the second by Bugenhagen and Wolf. In the hands 
of P. Martyr it undergoes some degree of modification. He contends 
that the giving over of man to a reprobate mind is here implied, in 


54 CHAPTER I. V. 18. 


consequence of which he unconsciously becomes his own chastiser. 
These, however, are not the only interpretations which have been 
offered of the passage. Others less admissible are the following: 1. 
The firmament, in the general glorious testimony which it bears to 
God, gives intimation also of the stern retribution which such a Being 
must execute against all his despisers. ‘So Ambrose, Thomas Aqui- 
nas, and others. 2. Frequent calamities descending from the skies 
upon men, such as thunder, lightning, and hail, display the retribu- 
tive justice of God. So Pelagius, Zegerus, and Buddeus. 3. The 
revelation of Christ for judgment at the last day; which is the view 
Chrysostum, Theodoret, ‘Mheophylact, Limborch, and most others 
adopt. In this case, the present ἀποχαλύπτεταυ requires to be taken 
in a future sense, which, however, is in so far the less allowable, 
from the circumstance that it stands parallel with that of the 17th 
verse. 4. Disasters and judgments proceeding from God, whose 
seat is regarded as in heaven. So Origen, Cyril, Beza, Calvin, and 
Bengel. 

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων. las here signifies like We, 
every kind, species. Perhaps it was the Apostle’s intention to denote 
the equality of the sins of the heathen, with those of the Jews. More 
eorrectly, he wished to show the wide extent and compass of the 
heathen’s amenability to punishment. Chrysostom: ’Evraida δείκχ- 
yuo ὅτι πολλαὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας αἱ ὁδοὶ, ἡ δὲ τῆς ἀλεθείας; μία" καὶ yee που- 
κίλον, καὶ πολυειδὲς, καὶ συγχκεχυμένον ἡ πλάνη" ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια, μια. ἕ 
Theophylact: Ἢ μὲν, τοῦ θεωρητικοῦ ἁμάρτημα, ἣ δὲ τοῦ πρακτικοῦ. 
According to the use of the Greek language, ἀσέβειω refers to our 
trespasses against God, ἀδικία to those against men. 

τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων. κατέχειν tO hinder, keep 
back—xarézew τὸν γέλωτα, the opposite of χρατεύσθαυ ὑπὸ τοῦ γέλωτος 
—to restrain. Luke iv. 42. 2. ‘Thess. 11. 6, 'Theophylact, χατα- 
καλύπτειν, oxoricew τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Here all depends on what is the 
signification of ἀλήθεια. One might consider it as standing absolutely 
for the Christian truth, and view the words of the Apostle as directed 
against those who, by their carnal minds, hinder the spread of the 
gospel, hostilely oppose it. ‘The meaning would then be, ‘* Men 
now appear obnoxious to punishment, because they will not accept 
the scheme proposed to them for their justification, but, on the con- 
trary, rather oppose its efficacy, as warring with their sinful desires.” 
But this meaning would not harmonize with the context. ‘The yae 
at the commencement of the verse leads us to expect the reason of a 
thought enunciated in the preceding. According to the explanation 
in question, however, there results only a contrast. ‘The gospel 
provides a means of salvation; on the other hand, it reveals wrath 
against all who resist the truth.” If this were the relation of the 
sentences, we should have looked, not for a yag but a δέ, Moreover, 


* Here he shows that many are the ways of ungodliness, but that the way 
of truth is one. For error is a various and multiform, and confused thing, 
whereas truth is simple. 


CHAPTER I. ν. 18. 55 


that explanation is contradictory to the following 19th verse, which 
speaks of a knowledge of God, not now for the first time imparted, 
but that had already, and for a long period, been accessible to man. 
Hence we must consider ἀλήθεια as signifying the religious truth 
which was extant, prior to the publication of the Gospel. But by 
that religious truth, two things may be understood, viz. either the 
primeval traditions which were handed down from age to age among 
the heathen, or the religious and moral sense inherent in the human 
mind. It is most correct to suppose that the latter is meant; for 
those traditions only exerted a quickening power upon man in so far 
as he admitted them into his mind, and allowed them to operate upon 
his conscience. ‘The 19th verse even leads to this view; Ammon 
prefers the former. Now, that by which the inward conviction of 
religious truth was restrained and suppressed is the ἀδυχία, un- 
righteousness: The ἐν is instrumental. ‘The Apostle here founds 
upon the great experimental truth, that the source of our knowledge 
of divine things lies in the immediate consciousness, in which prac- 
tice and theory are inseparably united, so that an ungodly disposition 
destroys all clear insight into divine things. In illustration of this 
sympathy of our religious and moral knowledge with the posture of 
the heart towards God, we may quote the beautiful passage of 
Chrysostom, ad 1 Cor. iii. 3, Homil. 8, ἐντεῦθεν μανθάνομεν dre εἰότως 
ἔλεγεν ὃ Χριστὸς ὅτυ ὃ ποιὼν τὰ φαῦλα οὐκ ἔῤχεταυ πξὸς τὸ Hus, χαὶ ὅτι 
Bios dxabaeros ἐμποδίζει δόγμασιν ὑψηλοῦς» οὐκ ἀφεὺς τὸ διοξατυκὸν Φανῆναυ 
τῆς διανοίας" ὥσπεξ οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν πλάνῃ ὄντα xai ὀδρθὼς διοῦντα μεῦναυ 
ἐν πλάνῃ ποτὲ, οὕτως οὐ ῥῴδιον πονηδίῳ συντρεφόμενον ἀναδλέψαυ ταχέως 
meds τὸ τῶν nae’ ἡμῖν δογμάτων ὕψος, ἀλλὰ YEN πάντων καθαρεύειν TOY παδὼν 
τὸν μέλλοντα Oneav τὴν ἀλήθειαν. So also the same author, in Joan. 3. 
(Hom. 24.) ᾿Ἔστυ γὰρ ἔστι καὶ ἀπὸ τρόπων διεφθαρμένων οὐκ ἀπὸ πολυ- 
πιραγμοσύνης μόνον ἀχαίξου σκοτωθῆναν τὴν διάνοιαν. «- « «..«. ἂν τῇ πρὸς 
Ἑβεαίους δὲ xai πολλαχοὺ τῶν πονηφὼν δογμάτων ταύτην Sov tus ἂν τὸν 
Παῦλον τὴν αἰτίαν εἴναν λέγοντα, τὴν yae ἐμπαθὴ ψυχὴν οὐ δύνασθαυ μέγα 
τυ γενναῖον ἰδεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥστιερ ὑπὸ τινὸς λήμης θολουμένην ἀμβλυωπίαν ὑπο- 
μένειν τὴν χαλεπωτάτην. +. +++ μὴ σπείρωμεν ἐπ᾽ ἀκάνθαις. Similar is 
the sentiment of Augustine: (De vera Relig. 6. 14,) Illa est enim 


* Hence we learn the truth of Christ’s saying, that “every one that doeth 
evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light,” and that an impure life is 
an impediment in the way to sublime doctrines, not permitting the discern- 
ment of the mind to expand. In like manner, therefore, as it is not possible 
for a man involved in error, and yet leading a good life, to remain in error 
long, so it is not easy for the man living in sin, to raise his eyes to the altitude 
of our doctrines. He must be purified from the passions, who means to en- 
gage in the pursuit of truth. 

+ For not by unseasonable curiosity only, but also by depraved morals, 
may the understanding be darkened. Both in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 
in many other passages, we find Paul assigning this as a cause of false 
opinions; because that the mind, enslaved by passion, is unable to discern 
any thing great and generous, but resembles the eye, whose vision, when be- 
dimmed by rheum, is greatly blunted......Let us not, then, sow upon thorns. 


56 CHAPTER I. v. 18, 19. 


peccati pena justissima, ut amittat quisque quo bene uti noluit, cum 
sine ulla posset difficultate, si vellet. Id est autem, ut qui sciens 
recte non facit, amittat scire quod rectum sit, et qui recte facere cum 
posset, noluit, amittat posse cum velit. With respect to the mode 
in which the Gentile Polytheism may be conceived to have arisen 
from carnal-mindedness, what must chiefly be taken into view, is 
that the heathen deities were deities of nature,—the finite world per- 
sonified without the idea of holiness. Hence the very attribute which, 
as Paul informs us, the character of the heathen did not possess, was 
also wanting in their gods. ‘They were gods who, having emanated 
from the earthly-mindedness of the nations, could have no reflex 
power to elevate above the earth. This more profound theory of the 
derivation of heathenism from moral and religious causes, is found 
among the ancient apologists. (Theophilus of Antioch, ad Autol. 1. 
1. 6. 2. Athanasius, Apologia, opp. Par. 1728, p. 8. Philastrius, 
De Heresibus, her. 60. Bibl. Max. Patr. vol. iv. P.1i. p. 30.) 
Comp. the Introduction to the Treatise on the moral influence of 
Heathenism, in Neander’s Denkwurdigkeiten, Th. 1. Among the 
different expositors, the following express with greatest force the 
sense here given. Calvin: Veritas est vera Dei cognitio. Erasmus: 
Veritatem cognitam non accommodarunt ad pie sancteque vivendum. 
Grotius: De iis dicit hominibus qui τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας de Deo, de ejus 
bonitate ac justitia, de honesto, per malos mores ita opprimunt, ut 
non magis appareant quam qui in atro carcere captivi detinentur. 
Simile illud in choro vetere: “Ageoves δὲ ὁπόσοι τὸ δίκαιον ἄγουσυν ὑπὸ 
τὰς adixov Boras ἀφανές. In fine Thomas Aquinas; Vera Dei cog- 
nitio, quantum est de se, homines inducit ad bonum, sed ligatur quasi 
captivitate detenta per injustitiz affectum, per quam ut dicitur, Ps. 11. 
diminute sunt veritates a filiis hominum. We have to mention 
another ingenious explanation of ἀδικία, viz. an act of violence or 
robbery, whereby God is defrauded of what rightfully belongs to him. 
Thus Chrysostom: ‘“ When one, to whom royal money has been en- 
trusted, (as the knowledge of God has been to man,) with orders to 
spend it in the king’s honour, squanders it upon thieves, harlots, and 
jugglers, (the unholy deities of nature,) he must be punished for the 
embezzlement. And thus also 'Theophylact, Gicumenius, and Beza. 
The context, however, does not favour this explanation. 

V. 19. As is shown by the dis, in this and the 20th verse the 
ἀλήθεια Of the 18th is explained, and in the 21, 22, 23, the mode of 
the κατέχειν. 

τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘The Apostle means to show in what respect 
the heathen were in possession of religious truth. Γνωστὸν may be 
viewed in various lights.. It may stand for the substantive ἡ γνῶσις» 
as elsewhere the adjective in the neuter τὸ ἀσθενὲς for ἀσθένεια, 1 Cor. 
1. 25, τὸ χεηστὸν for χρηστότης» Rom. ii. 4. So Justin, Apol. ii. c. 14. 
Ἔν τή Φύσει τὴ τῷν ἀνθρώπων ἔστι τὸ yvaerotov καλοῦ καὶ αἰσχεοῦ. It 


* There is in human nature ἃ knowledge of right and wrong.. 


CHAPTER I. V. 19. oi 


may also retain its meaning as verbal adjective, in which case it 
must be rendered the knowable, just as in philosophical language are 
often found τὸ νοητὸν, τὸ αἰσθητὸν, τὸ ἀόρατον, V. 20. Even the very 
word γνωστὸν frequently oceurs in Plato, who in the fifth Book of the 
Republic several times places τὸ γνωστὸν and τὸ δοξαστὸν in opposition, 
(478 Steph.) In things theoretical, the termination τὸς denotes usu- 
ally the possibilitas, in things practical, the officiwm or facultas, 
orvyntos, ἀγαπητὸς. See on such words as used by Plato, Wytten- 
bach’s Pheedo, p. 295, ed. Lips. To this way of understanding γνωσ- 
zov, we must here give the preference, because the circumstance, that 
in the sequel an ddgazov of God is spoken of, implies that God is, in 
‘one respect, knowable, in another not. Josephus employs a mode 
of expression exactly similar, when he says, 6. Apion I. xi. ὁ. 16. 
Θεὸς δυνάμευ μόνον Hucv γνώριμος ὅποῖος δὲ χατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἄγνωστος. It is 
in this manner also, that the majority of commentators have explained 
the word. Pelagius: Quod potest naturaliter sciri de Deo, quod sit, 
et quod justus sit, 7. e. that there is but one, and he a holy God. 
Calvin: Intelligit id totum quod pertinet ad gloriam Domini illustran- 
dam, vel, quod idem est, quidquid nos movere excitareque debet ad 
Deum glorificandum. Quo verbo significat, Deum quantus est min- 
ime posse mente nostra capi, sed aliquem esse modum intra quem se 
cohibere debeant homines, sicut Deus ad modulum nostrum attempe- 
rat quidquid de se testatur. Melancthon: Addit que sit illa ἀλήθεια. 
Est notitia, inquit de Deo et cxtere notitiz, que vocantur leges natu- 
rales, que omnes sunt testimonium de Deo, et docent qualis sit Deus, 
et quod judicaturus sit. Ernesti proposed to consider the expression 
as periphrastic, for ὁ Θεὸς 6 γνωστὸς and appealed to the LXX. Gen. ii. 
9. τοῦ εἰδέναν γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ" where it does indeed appear to 
be used periphrastically, but where it may yet with much greater 
probability be considered as a substitute for γνῶσις, signifying the 
grounds of the knowledge of good and evil. In the passage before 
us, however, the ἀόξατα which succeeds, shows that a certain empha- 
sis lies on the γνωστὸν, and accordingly that it cannot be used merely 
as a periphrasis. 

φανεξόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς. Here the meaning depends upon the ἐν. If 
it be translated among, we are led with Theophylact and Erasmus, 
to think of the few among the heathen, who possessed a deeper in- 
sight into religion. But, as the Apostle is speaking of the more 
universal guilt and sinfulness of the heathen, he cannot mean that 
religious truth which was confined to a few of them. Hence, we 
must either suppose that ὃν forms with αὐτοῖς» a periphrasis for the 
dative, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 11, (John xi. 10, 12,35, 1 Cor. ii. 6, ii. Cor. 
viii. 1, are appealed to, but without sufficient grounds for the same 
use of ἐν) or, taking it in its proper signification, render the passage 
is manifest within them. 'Thom. Aquinas: Quod cognoscibile est 
de Deo ab homine per rationem, manifestum est illis ex eo quod in 
illis est, ex homine intrinseco. ‘The connection of the present with 
the following verse, by the yde, shows that the Apostle principally 

8 


58 CHAPTER I. V. 20. 


intends that conviction which man derives from the works of Goa. 
This, however, is not by any means inconsistent with the view we 
take of the passage. ‘The creation, contemplated per se, does not 
confer upon man the knowledge of God in question; it but awakens 
his slumbering consciousness, so that he comes of himself to the 
apprehension of these elements of divine knowledge that lie within 
his breast. Hence, although it is by means of the external world 
that the mind develops its knowledge of God, that knowledge is still 
within itself. ‘The Apostle supposes an inward relationship of the 
human with the Divine mind, Acts xvii. 27,28. With much preci- 
sion, therefore, does Melancthon say: Quanquam enim, ut postea 
dicit, mens ratiocinatur aliquid de Deo, ex consideratione mirabilium 
ejus operum in universa rerum natura, tamen hune syllogismum ratio 
non haberet, nisi etiam Deus, aliquam notitiam xara πεόληψιν indi- 
disset mentibus nostris, et illa mirabilia specula rerum σπφόληψιν ex- 
citant. 

V.20. A more precise statement of the way in which men are 
capable of knowing God. Ta γὰφ ἀόρατα dvrov, κτλ. The incom- 
prehensibility of the Divine Being is more accurately defined by the 
specification of those attributes with which the contemplation of 
nature makes us acquainted. Δύναμις is omnipotence, ἡ δημιουδγία» 
as Theodoret explains it. ‘The idea which first suggests itself to 
man, on contemplating nature, is that of a force far surpassing his 
own, infinite power. ‘This is observed in the Book of Wisdom, xiit. 
4, where the author, speaking of the heathen surveying the material 
world, SAYS ἐκπλαγέντες δυναμυν xa ἐνέφγειαν. Θειότης» different from 
Θεότης which denotes the Divine Being, Col. 11. 9, expresses the 
sum of all the attributes of God, that in virtue of which God is God 
tous. Itis hence also used by periphrasis for Θεὸς, as in the Book 
of Wisdom, xvili. 9, 5 τῆς θειότητος νόμος. The quality which first 
impresses itself upon man, is omnipotence; Paul, however, here 
seeks to express that this omnipotence is not blind, but that along 
with it we come to have a sense of the other divine attributes. In 
like manner, in the 13th chapter of the Book of Wisdom the author 
endeavours to show how the observations of nature ought to have 
awakened the heathen to the consciousness of God. The passage 
so strongly resembles that on which we are commenting, that one 
might almost imagine St. Paul to have had it in his eye, if the subject 
were not so much a locus communis among the Jewish doctors, as 
makes it easy to suppose a fortuitous accordance between the two 
writers. Calvin: Non recenset autem sigillatim que in Deo consi- 
derari possunt, sed docet ad zternam usque ejus potentiam et divini- 
tatem perveniri. Nam qui omnium est auctor, eum oportet sine initio 
esse et a seipso. Ubi eo ventum est, jam se profert divinitas, Que 
nisi cum singulis Dei virtutibus nequit consistere, quando sub ea 
omnes continentur. 

ἀπὸ κτίσεως χόσμου. ‘The ἀπὸ may mean either by or since. In 
the former sense, it is found even in the New Testament united with 


CHAPTER I. V. 20, 21. 59 


γινώσκειν, Mat. vil. 16 and 20, but that sense is far more frequently 
expressed by ix, aS ix τῶν ὀνύχων λέοντος; and being here moreover 
contained in the woujuace it is more correct to give to ἀπὸ the second 
meaning of since as dx’ ἀεχῆς κτίσεως, Mark x. 6, Ecclesiasticus xvi. 
25. Of χοσμοὺ; it may be remarked, that what is termed the physico- 
theological proof lies already in the etymon of the word. (Plin. 
Hist. Nat. 1. ii. c. 4.) 

τοὺς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται. On the ποιήμασυ νοούμενα Bengel 
observes, Incomparabile oxymoron! Invisibilia Dei, si unquam, certe 
in creatione facta essent visibilia, sed tum quoque non nisi per intel- 
ligentiam. Pelagius: ‘Tam evidenter intellecta sunt, ut conspecta 
dicantur. In like manner, Arist. De Mundo, 6. 6. πάσῃ θνητῇ φύσει 
γενόμενος ἀθεώρητος, an’ avrav Tay teywy θεωξείται 6 θεός. ‘There are 
several who take ποίημα in the sense of action, by God’s operation 
in the created world. It may unquestionably bear this sense, which 
the Hebrew nwyn likewise bears, and which has been retained by 
the LXX., Eccles. vii. 14, vill. 17, Ps. exlii. 5. Plato also (De leg. 
X.) places in contrast τὼ ποιήματα and τὼ παθηματα τὼν ἀνθρώπων. But 
it is more natural to hold by the common signification, by means of 
the creatures. The νοούμενα is illustrative of xadoeara:, an inward 
exercise of thought and reflection being necessary in order to recog- 
nize in nature those divine attributes. Mosheim: ‘‘ when we consider 
them.’’ ‘The meaning of the passage is happily expanded by Eras- 
mus in his paraphrase. 

εἰς τὸ εἰναὶ" εἰς τὸ used, as it frequently is, in the New Testament 
for ὥστε. Chrysostom: Καύτοιγε οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα ἐποίησεν ὃ Θεὸς, 
εἰ χαὺ τοῦτο ἐξέδη. Οὐ γὰς ἵνα αὐτοὺς ἀπολογίας ἀποστεξήσῃ»ν διδασκαλ- 
tay τοσαύτην εἰς μέσον προύθηκεν; ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα αὐτὸν ἐπὺγνῶσιν.ἕ To which 
observation Gicumenius appends the exegetic rule: Ieooeze your του- 
ούτῳ ἰδιώματι τῆς Yeahs, καὶ od προσχόψεις. πολλὼ γὰρ τοιαῦτα πανταχοῦ 
λέγονται; ἃ δεῖ λύειν οὕτως: ὡς Ex τοὺ ἀποτελέσματος αἰτιολογούμενα.Ἷ 

V. 21. According to the syntax, the διότι refers to ἀναπολογήτους» 
as illustrative of why they are without excuse. According to the 
sense, however, and connection with the entire preceding context, it 
is, as we have already said, an explication of the xazéyew in verse 18. 
The general assertion formerly made by the Apostle, that the origi- 
nal knowledge of God was merely suppressed by the heathen, he 
now establishes by showing how they came, first to entertain un- 
worthy conceptions, and afterwards, as a natural consequence, to 
make unworthy representations of the Divine Being. In the Old 
Testament they are also styled os naw, forgetters of God, Ps. 
ix. 17. Their true apprehensions of God were suppressed, and then 


* God did not make them for this end. Although it has so turned out. The 
great lesson he brought forward was not intended to deprive them of an ex- 
cuse, but that they might learn to know himself. 

+ Give heed to such idioms and you will not err. For many such things 
are everywhere said which require to be resolved, as specifying the cause 
from the event, 


60 CHAPTER I. v. 21. 22. 


false and unworthy gods substituted in the place of Him who is 
almighty and holy. It was thus that the heathen, as Jeremiah up- 
braids the Jews, committed two great evils. ‘They forsook the 
fountain of living waters, and hewed out for them broken cisterns 
that could hold no water. And their guilt in this respect, as Thomas 
Aquinas observes, was in reality twofold. An offence, which is the 
offspring of ignorance, is forgiven, but it waxes doubly heinous when 
that ignorance itself is culpable; just as he commits a double crime, 
who first intoxicates himself, and then perpetrates a murder. 

The two duties of δσξάζειν and εὐχαριστεῖν are thus illustrated by 
Melanethon. 700 glorify God as God, is to acknowledge him in the 
integrity of his divine attributes, and then, for the sake of these, to 
love, invoke, and fear him. 1700 be thankful to him, is to acknow- 
ledge that God manifests actively all these attributes in the direction 
and government of the world, Now, in so far as men mistook these 
positive duties, implied in their state of relationship to God, the 
negative found place, they formed erroneous conceptions of his nature. 

The verb ματαιοῦσθαι has in the LXX. the double signification of 
irritum fieri and stultum fieri, like “Don. The Vulgate takes the 
first, and translates, evanuerunt. And so likewise, or nearly so, 
many of the expositors. Erasmus has frustrati sunt, to wit, in their 
attempts to bring some great discovery to light by their researches. 
The other signification, however, appears the more eligible, were it 
for no other reason than that the delusion consisted chiefly in the 
adoration of false deities, which in Acts xiv. 15, are styled τὰ μάταια. 
According to this view, Calvin expounds correctly as follows: Dere- 
licta Dei veritate, ad sensus sui vanitatem conversi sunt, cujus omnis 
perspicacia inanis est. Hee illa est injustitia, quod semen rect 
ΠΟΙ: mox sua pravitate suffocent, priusquam in segetem emergat. 

ἐν toes διαλογισμοῖς. The word διαλογισμὸς is generally used in a 
bad sense, Rom. xiv. 1, 1 Cor. iii. 20. All the thinking of man is 
only the manifestation of his mind, his inward being. Hence, in as 
far as that was turned away from God, his thoughts with respect to 
God, took likewise a perverse direction; his conceptions became 
foolish, as religious and moral error is always the consequence of 
religious and moral perversity, upon which it has also a reflex opera- 
tion. Kaedva, like the Hebrew 39, is a designation of the entire in- 
ward man, the disposition; here the inward and immediate sense 
of divine things. ‘This was originally ἀλήθεια or φῶς» as Christ, Mat. 
vi. 22, calls it, but now it has lost its vigour, 7. e. was darkened. 

V. 22. It is the invariable property of error in morals and religion, 
that men take credit to themselves for it, and extol itas wisdom. So 
the heathen. ‘They were proud of their knowledge in general, and 
boasted of their learning. 1 Cor. i. 21. Philosophy made them 
vain also of their discernment of divine things. Notwithstanding all 
this, however, on the subject of the Deity they laboured under the 
greatest delusion. With regard even to their philosophers, it may 
be true that they were not enslaved by the common idolatry; still the 


CHAPTER. ν. 23. 61 


pantheistical doctrines which they entertained were closely allied to 
polytheism, and served it as a kind of defence, by representing it as 
involving some profounder meaning. ‘The word φάσκχω is not with- 
out emphasis. It most frequently denotes in Greek the vawnting of 
a pretender. See Wetstein and Kypke, ἃ. ἢ. 1. and Sturz. Lex. 
Xen. Hence the proverbial expression οὗ φιλοσοφεῖν φάσκοντες. Ci- 
cero, (Tusc. 1. i. 6. 9.) Qui se sapientes esse profitentur. Comp. 
LXX. Jer. x. 14. 

V. 23. Chrysostom, πρῶτον ἔγκλημα; ὅτυ Θεὸν οὐχ ebeor δεύτεξον; 
OTL χαὺ ἀφορμὰς ἔχοντες μεγάλας καὺ σαφεῖς" τρίτον, ὅτι σοφοὶ λέγοντες 
εὐναυ" TETAETOV, OTL οὐ μόνον οὐχ εὗδον, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς δαίμονας κατήγαγον: 
καὺ λίθους, καὶ ξύλα τὸ σέβας ἐκεῦνο....τὴν yae γνῶσιν ἣν ἔδευ περὶ τοῦ 
πάντων ἀσυγκείτως ὑπεξφέχοντος ἔχειν, ταύτην τῷ πάντων ἀσυγχξύτως εὖτε- 
λεστέρῳ περφιέθηχαν.ἢ Lact. (Inst. Div. ]. ii. c. 6.) Duplici ra- 
tione peccatur ab insipientibus, quod elementa, id est, Dei opera Deo 
preferunt, deinde quod elementorum ipsorum figuras colunt. Verse 
21. merely pointed to the error so long as it was confined to the mind 
of the deluded sages, here the Apostle shows how it manifested itself 
externally. ‘The false conceptions of God gave rise to false repre- 
sentations of him. 

Kai ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ apdaerov Θεοῦ. ‘The Apostle’s object is 
to set forth the infinite distance of God from all created beings; and, 
hence the contrast between δόξα ἀφθάφτον Θεοῦ and POaerds ἄνθρωπος. 
ἀλλάσσειν τὴν δόξαν Θεοῦ, 15 an Old ‘Testament expression, ἡ 1123 V3" 
found in Ps. evi. 20, Jer. ii. 11, Hoseaiv. 7. The Hebrew word 
713 denotes generally the discovery or manifestation of the being 
of God, and more particularly his majesty and glory. With the 
7123 of the invisible glory is contrasted the εἰκών. But the polytheists 
did not even choose the image of the noblest among the perishing 
creatures; they had recourse to that of brutes, yea, even of the most 
despicable of these. 

Ἔν duousuari instead of εἰς ὁμοίωμα, according to the usual substitu- 
tion of ἐν for εἰς, when it is a translation of the Hebrew 2. So Ps. 
ev. 10, ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου. ὋὉμοίωμα εἰχό- 
vos is also a Hebraism instead of εἰς εἰκόνα ὁμοῖον DO¥ ὨΊΪ)Ἴ9. Similar 
passages are found in Philo the monotheist. See Wetstein and Carp- 
zovius, 5. h.]. See also in Josephus, the passage c. Apion, 1, 2, 
where, in forcible terms, he paints how unfit even the noblest sub- 
stances are to represent the glory of the invisible Jehovah. 


* The first charge is, that they did not find God; the second, that they failed 
to do so, although favoured with the best and most manifest opportunities; 
the third, that they failed, though calling themselves wise; and the fourth, 
that they not merely did not find him, but degraded his worship to demons 
and stones and blocks...... The knowledge which they ought to have had con- 
cerning him who is incomparably the most excellent of all, they transferred 
to that which is incomparably the most vile. 


62 CHAPTER I. v. 24. 


PHT) Vs 


EXPLICATION O* THE THESIS IN THE CASE OF THE HEATHEN, WITH 
REFERENCE TO THE PRACTICAL DEPRAVITY INTO WHICH THEY SANK 
IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR SPECULATIVE ERRORS. v. 24—382. 


Tue Apostle, in the sequel, sketches from the life a picture of the 
monstrous immoralities of the heathen. This subserves his design, 
which is to manifest their guiltiness and need of a Saviour. At the 
same time, however, he represents their moral depravity in the as- 
pect of a divine judgment. Nor is there any discrepancy in these 
two views. For, seeing that in God’s government of the world, a 
sense of guilt and physical evil are inseparably connected with sin, 
in so far the divine condemnation is thereby always connected with 
it. John iii. 19. Here the Apostle’s attention is principally directed 
to that arrangement in the moral economy of the world, by virtue of 
which, the obscuration of a man’s knowledge of God, blinds him 
with respect to practical duty, so as that he becomes capable of dis- 
honouring himself. '‘Theophylact: ὃ yae τὸν Sedv μὴ Sérwy εὐδέναυ; εὖ- 
ϑὺς χαὺ κατὰ τὸν βίον ScapSeveerar.* Even the heathen had observed 
how irreligious men become blinded and enslaved to error as to 
practical duties, falling into the ἀδόχιμος vows, of which Paul speaks, 
v. 28; and in this they saw a moral Nemesis of the gods. Lycurg. 
adv. Leocr. p. 213. Οὗ γὰρ Seot οὐδὲν πρότερον ποιοῦσιν ἢ τῶν πονηρῶν 
ἀνθρώπων τὴν διάνοιαν παράγουσι.ἱ So likewise the verses of Eu- 
ripides, 

ὅταν γὰρ ὀργὴ δαιμιύνων βλάπτει τινὰ, 
τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ πεῶτον ἐξαφαιρεῖται φρενῶν 
τὸν γοῦν τὸν ἐσθλὸν, εἴς TE τὴν χείρω τρέπει 
γνώμην" ἵν᾽ εἰδὴ μηδὲν ὧν ἁμαρτάνει. 


See Ruhnken ad 8116]. Pat. ii. c. 57. With regard to the present 
case, it is obvious that such a thing as a deification of nature, could 
only be introduced where there was a defect in the religious and 
moral sense. On the other hand, however, it was also inevitable 
that, when once the worship of nature was established, the religious 
and moral sense would, even from infancy, be enfeebled, and at last 
gradually destroyed; whence immorality would necessarily arise. 
In like manner, as a tendency towards nature, as such, is the peculiar 


* He that will not know God is speedily corrupted also in his morals. 
+ There is nothing more common for the gods to do than pervert the minds 
of wicked men. 


CHAPTER I. v. 24. 63 


property of both pantheism and polytheism, so is the native tendency 
of theism towards morality. We may form a still more precise con- 
ception of the retribution thus inflicted upon the heathen. God had 
been degraded not only beneath the divine, but even beneath the hu- 
man dignity, being represented in the form of a beast. Hence, 
according to the secret laws of this aberration, man came at last to 
sink not only below his own rank, but below the brutes themselves. 
The differentia constitutiva between man and the other animals is the 
gift of reason. But this distinction is done away for the time during 
which the blind sinful inclination is awake: and where that is per- 
mitted Jong and powerfully to predominate, the understanding is 
utterly destroyed, and man sinks to a perfect level with the brute. 
Nay, by certain unnatural crimes, repugnant to the brute itself, he 
even debased himself lower. A terrific judgment! 

Διὸ xa’ παρέδωχεν. What has been said above determines the 
sense of παρέδωχεν. It signifies neither a violent compulsion, nor 
yet a mere passive permission. Having once ordained as a Jaw of 
his moral government, that practical transgression should emanate 
from the suppression of divine knowledge in the mind of man, God 
did not, in the present instance, suspend this law, but suffered it to 
come into operation; and thus by his judgment was evil begotten of 
evil. It is hence obvious, that in another point of view, it might also 
be said of the heathen, that they gave themselves up. Eph. iv. 19. 
Strikingly illustrative of this meaning of παρέδωχεν 15 the passage of 
Ecclesiasticus iv. 19, where the author speaks of the conduct of di- 
vine wisdom towards the man who voluntarily deviates from her 
ways. ‘* Butif he go wrong she will forsake him, and give him over 
to his own ruin.” Comp. Acts vii.42. Chrysostom: Kas γὰς εἴ 7υς 
βασιλέως υἱὸς ὧν, Tov malign ἀ7ιμάσας ἕλοι7ο εἶναν me7a λῃσήῶν; καὶ ἀνδρο- 
φόνων; χαὺ TyuBoevyar, καὶ 7ὰ ἐχεύνων προ͵ιμήσειε τῆς malegas οἰκίας; 
ἀφίησιν αὐ7ὸν ὃ πα7ὴδν dole δια Ths πείρας αὐτῆς μαθεῖν Τῆς οἰκείας ἀνοίας 
7ὴν ὑπερβολήν. Compare Calvin, ad. ἢ. 1. 

ἐν Tavs ἐπιθυμίαις. ‘This is most frequently coupled with ἀχαθαξσίαν, 
which again is made to depend upon wagédaxev" and the passage is 
rendered, he “gave them up through their lusts to uncleanness.”’ 
But the Hebrew mode of construction is the most proper, according 
to which, ἐν stands for εἰς, and the εἰς dxadagovay is regarded as an 
elucidation of ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις. ‘Thus in the Hebrew, substantives in- 
tended to illustrate substantives going before, are connected with them 
by 5. ‘*He gave them up to their lusts, to uncleanness, 7. 6. so that 
they become unclean.”” ’Axafagova principally sensualities. 

Tov ἀγιμάξεσθαι Koppe very needlessly supposes passive. It is 
better to suppose it medial, and that ἐν éav7ocs stands for ἐν ἀλλήλοις» 


* Were any king’s son, despising his father, to join himself to robbers, 
murderers, and violators of tombs, and prefer their company to his home, the 
father leaves him to himself, in order that he may learn from experience the 
excess of his folly. 


64 CHAPTER I. V. 25. 


for which it is substituted, Eph. iv. 32, and below, v. 27. It is so 
likewise even, in classical authors. See Ast. ad Plat. leg. p. 74. 

Ver. 25. οἵτινες» as being such, to be resolved by yap. ‘This verse 
is only to be regarded as an illustrative parenthesis intended to point 
out the retributive nature of their self-inflicted dishonour. 

μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει. ‘The words ἀλήϑεια 
and ψεῦδος may be regarded as they have been by most interpreters, 
as abstracta pro concretis. In which case, ψεῦδος requires to be 
translated idol, what is not God. Thus in Hebrew the Pagan dei- 
ties are often called “py, Is. xliv. 20; Jer. iil. 10, ΧΗ]. 25. ᾿Αληϑειαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, according to a well known Hebraism, would then be equi- 
valent to Θεὸς ἀληδὴς» and the passage of Philo, 1. 3, De vita Mosis, 
p- 578, would furnish a striking parallel, where that author says, of 
the Israelites who had made the golden calf, that Moses was amazed, 
ὅσον ψεῦδος ἀνθ᾽ ὅσης ἀληθείας ὑτιηλλάξαντο. “ἡ It is possible, however, 
that ἀλήθευα may here signify the nature of God, in contradistinction 
to that which is ascribed to him when he 15 represented as corporeal, 
and resembling the creatures. Ψεῦδος would then mean his imagi- 
nary nature. ‘This signification of ἀλήθεια is frequent even among 
profane authors, 6. g. Aulian, Hist. Var. Τὰ, li. c. 8. ἕππος ἐν eixove 
stands in distinction to ἀληθεινὸς ἵππος. Polyb. Hist. 1. 84, 6, ἐπ᾽ 
αὐτῆς ἀληθείας ἣν ovvedecv, “ Be convinced by the thing itself.” 1014. 
iii. 115, 2. μάχη ἀληθινή. Cicero (‘Tusc. Ὁ. 1. 5,) c. 1, uses pictura 
and imagines virtutum for res and veritas. Ambrose explains the 
passage as follows: Nomen Dei, qui verus est, dederunt his qui non 
sunt Dei. Lapidibus enim, vel lignis, vel ceteris metallis auferentes 
quod sunt, dant illis quod nont sunt, hoe est immutare verum in fal- 
sum. So also Calvin. Neither is it a bad exposition of Wolf to 
understand by ἀλήθεια the innate idea of God, and by ψεῦδος the same 
in its obscured form. 

᾿Εσεϑάσθησαν. Σεδάζομαι is Synonymous with σέδεσθαι and λατρεύειν. 
Only some will here have ce6a2ecdar stand for inward reverence, in 
order that λατρεύειν, which properly signifies external worship, may 
preserve that meaning exclusively to itself. 

παξὰ τὸν xricavza is by some rendered passing by the Creator, as 
Beza, Grotius, Heumann, and among the ancients, Hilarius. But, 
although occasionally παξὼ may have this meaning, it is not the one 
which it most frequently bears. The LXX., Josephus and Philo 
use it always as the comparative particle, expressing the same as the 
Hebrew 725, above, more than, Xenoph. Mem. i. 4, 14, maga τὰ ἄλλα 
ζῶα ὥσπερ θεοὶ of ἄνθξωπου διοτεύουσι. So likewise the Syrian. ‘The 
same thought which is here expressed by the Apostle, is found also 
expressed by Philo (De Opif. m. p. 2.) τινὲς τὸν κόσμον μάλλον ἢ τὸν 
χοσμοποιὸν θαυμάσαντες. It is a doubtful point, however, whether. 
Paul means, that the deities represented by statues, were powers of 
nature, in which case he contends against a theologia naturalis, or 


* What a lie they had substituted for how great a reality! 


CHAPTER I. V. 26, 27. 65 


whether his thought be, that inasmuch as these representations were 
material, matter was the object of adoration to the heathen. 

ὃς ἔστιν εὐλογητός. This doxology it is customary both for Jews 
and Mahometans to append to the name of God, whenever any thing 
unworthy requires to be said of the Divine Being, as if the writer 
wishes to remove every suspicion of his acquiescing in the impious 
words. In an Arabian work, Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. Berol. on*the 
various religious sects of Isfrajini, the pious Mahometan subjoins 
after every heresy of which he makes mention: “ God is exalted 
above what they say.’’ Doxologies of the kind are found elsewhere 
in Paul’s writings, Gal. i. 5, 2Cor. xi. 31. εὐλογητὸς worthy of 
praise, blessed. Chrysostom: ἀλλ᾽ od διὰ 7οῦτό τι παξεδλάδη; φησίν" 
αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ εἰς Τοὺς αἰῶνας εὐλογηΐῆος. ’Ev7avda δείκνυσιν Ore οὐχ ἑαυγῷ 
ἀμύνων εἴασεν avJovs, ὅπουγε αὐ7ὸς οὐδὲν ἔπασχεν. ἢ 

V. 26. After having thus pointed out the retributive hand of God 
manifested by the accordance between the penalty inflicted upon the 
sin, and the sin itself, he resumes the delineation of the former, which 
had been commenced in verse 24, and he uses the same words to 
connect as he had there done. Unnatural lust, of which the Apostle 
here speaks as the lowest stage of debasement, prevailed in the old 
world amongst most heathen nations. In Greece it was in some 
places forbidden by law, in others, as for example in Crete, tolerated 
by the state. At the period in which our Apostle writes, it broke out 
to the most revolting extent not only at Rome, but over the whole 
empire. He who is unacquainted with the historical monuments of 
that age, especially Petronius, Suetonius, Martial, and Juneval, can 
scarcely figure to himself these excesses so frightful as they really 
were. A view into this moral corruption has been opened up by 
Meiners in his Geschichte des Verfalls der Sitten und der Staatsver- 
fassung der Rimer, Leipzig, 1791. See also Neander’s Denkwur- 
digkeiten, Ὁ. i. s. 143. 

maby ἀτιμίας by a Hebrew idiom for ἀτιμότατα. Chrysostom: πάσ- 
Hel ἐν τοῖς ἁμαφτήμασιν ἡ ψυχὴ μᾶλλον, καὶ καταισχύνεταυ, ἢ TO σῶμα ἐν 
τοῖς νοσήμασι.Ϊ ‘Ihe Apostle here mentions, in the first instance, the 
shamelessness of that sex, to which modesty is indispensable. The 
degeneracy of women is spoken of by Seneca, (Ep. 95.) Martial, 
(Epigr. 1. 1. ep. 90, ad Bassam,) Atheneus, (Deipnos, 1. 13, p. 605.) 
Women addicted to the crime alluded to were common in Lesbos, 
and were called τειβάδες, Erarecorevar.—Xerous, USUS Venereus. 

V. 27. ἐξεχαύθησαν, ᾿Εχκαίω antique ἐχχαύω, also ardere, and xara- 
φλέγω; αἴθεσθαυ τῷ ἔφωτι are usual expressions for lascivious desires, 
80 teeSus.— ’ Αντιυμισθία, Merces par opere.—’ Ey ἑαυτοῖς. "Ev, like the 


* But thereby, says the Apostle, he received no wrong, for he is blessed for 
ever. Here he shows, that it could not be to avenge himself that God gave 
them up, for he suffered nothing. 

Ἶ t More than the body by disease does the soul suffer, and is put to shame, 
y sin. 


66 CHAPTER I. v. 28. 


Hebrew 3, instrumentum. ἑαυτοις stands for ἀλλήλοις one by another. 
—TIladvy is, in the Septuagint, the translation of yw, revolts it also 
means idolatry. 

Of the punishment itself Theodoret thus speaks: ὃ yae οὐδεὶς αὐτοὺς 
τῶν πολεμίων ἐπειράθη διαθεῦῖναυ More, ταῦτα μετὰ πάσης ἀσπάζονται πξο- 
θυμίας᾽ καὶ ἣν οὐδεὶς ἂν αὐτῶν δικαστὴς κατεψηφίσατο τιμωρίαν, ταύτην 
αὐτοὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἐπισπωνται. Chrysostom, ᾿Επειδὴ yae need γεέννης 
καὶ κολάσεως λέγων, VEY οὐχ ἐδόχευ πιστὸς ELVAL τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν» καὶ οὕτω ζῇν 
πεοαιξουμένοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταγέλαστος, δείκνυσιν ἐν ἀυτῇ τῇ ἡδονῇ ταύτην 
τὴν κόλασιν οὖσαν. εὖ δὲ οὐκ αἰσθάνονται» ἀλλ᾽ ἥδονται, μὴ θαυμάσῃς" καὶ 
ae χαὶ οἱ μαινόμενον χαὶ οἱ φξενίτιδι κατεχόμενον νόσῳ πολλὼ ἑαυτοὺς 
GOuXOVvYTES, καὶ ἐλεεινὰ πράσσοντες: ἐφ᾽ οἷς αὐτοὺς ET ECOL δαχρύουσι; γελῶσι 
καὶ Evrevpace τοῖς γινομένους αὐτοί. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ τοῦτό φαμεν αὐτοὺς ἀπην- 
λάχθαν χολάσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ δὲ αὐτό μὲν οὖν τοῦτο ἐν χαλεπωτέξῳᾳ εἴναν 
τιμωρίᾳ, OTL οὐδὲ ἴσασιν ἐν οἷς εἰσιν οὐ γὰξ ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούντων 
GAN ἀπὸτῶν Dyvavovtar, Sev φέρειν τὰς ψήφου ς.ἷ Pelagius: 
Ita ut quasi amentes ipsi in se suorum sint vindices delictorum. 

V. 28. The Apostle has shown, in v. 21, that the suppression of 
the innate knowledge of God among the heathen, entailed, as a neces- 
sary consequence, a perversion of the reflective powers, and wrong 
conceptions of the deity, such as they ought to have been ashamed 
of. He extends this thought, and shows that the same cause gave 
rise to a blindness on moral subjects in general, which was no less 
disgraceful to them. And it is always found, that the want of a sense 
of religion blunts the sense for general morality. ‘This, the natural 
consequence of things, according to the economy of the moral world 
at present obtaining, and which is founded on the nature of God, the 
Apostle again lays down, as he had done before in verse 24, as a 
Divine judgment. 

ἔχειν ἐν ἐπυγνώσεν May be regarded as a circumlocution for the verb 
invywooxew, according to the common practice of forming such cir- 
cumlocutions with ἔχειν and ἐν, ἔχειν ἐν dey for deyi2ecbar, ἔχειν ἐν 
αἰτίαις for αἰγιάσθαι" SO in Latin, in spe habere for sperare. See Vig. 
ed. Herm. p. 608. In this instance, however, it may possess a pecu- 


* What none of their enemies ever attempted to inflict upon them, they 
with all alacrity embrace, and what no judge ever decreed as a punishment, 
they voluntarily entail upon themselves. 

+ For as when he spake of hell and punishment, he seemed to the wicked, 
and such as followed that kind of life, to be now unworthy of belief, and more 
an object of ridicule; he shows that the punishment of the pleasure lies in 
the pleasure itself. And though men may not be sensible of this, but rather 
the contrary, do not you, on that account, be surprised. In the same way, 
madmen and those who labour under the delirium of a fever, do much injury 
to themselves, and commit such pitiful things, as make others weep for them; 
and yet they laugh all the while, and are delighted with what they have done. 
But we do not, for that reason, pronounce their case to be less unhappy; on 
the contrary, we deem their misery aggravated by the circumstance that they 
are unconscious of it. For we must take the opinion, not of the sick, but of 
them that are whole. 


CHAPTER I. V. 28, 29, 30. 67 


liar significancy, like ἔχειν 7ὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μένοντα ἐν ὑμὸν, John v. 
38. It seems indeed to denote continuance, persevering in the 
knowledge of God. Aox wae originally means fo prove; then fo 
favour or choose, and is equivalent to δόκομον ἡγείσθαν" aS δεδοχυμάσ- 
μεθα, 1 Thes. ii. 4, is also to be understood, Comp. Joseph. Antiq. 
li. 7, 8, τὰ μὲν οὖν ὀνόμαω δηλῆσαυ τούτων ovx edoxiuagov, Where we 
must translate it ‘I did not think it right.” The Arabian version 
gives the meaning ‘as they would not resolve.’ In the English 
translation, (one which is in many respects admirable,) it is given 
with great precision, ‘‘as they did not like to retain God in their 
knowledge.”” Erasmus: Non visum est eis Deum quem cognosce- 
bant, agnoscere et venerari. 

&Sdxtwoy vovy stands by paronomasia, with reference to ἐδοχύμασαν. 
ἀδόχιμος may be taken either as active or passive. As active, it would 
signify a mind incapable of proving, as passive, reprobate. Eras- 
mus: Mens reproba que omnibus displiceat. The Syrian, a vain 
mind. Beza characterizes this sense as flat, and doubtless the other, 
viz. a blinded mind, one that is no longer capable of judging, is far 
more significant. It casts a stronger light upon the retribution in the 
case. So Limborch, Wolf, and others. ‘The old French translation, 
which follows that of Beza, is ‘un jugement dépourvu de tout juge- 
ment.” Adopting this sense, ἀδόχιμος vovg would be equivalent to 
dxevoia. It ought, however, to be taken into account, that the use of 
this word, in an active sense, must be considered as still undemon- 
strated. It is true, that adjectives in ὑμος, have an active no less than 
a passive import, as, ex. 27. τρόφιμος, μάχιμος. With most authors, 
however, they are used almost exclusively in the passive significa- 
tion. ‘This is likewise the case with dddxcuos, which frequently 
occurs, both in the classics and in the New Testament. Beza holds 
that it is employed actively in Tit. i. 16. Thus sometimes νόμισμα 
ἀδόχυμον, “money which the assayer does not approve,” stands for 
ov χεήσιμον. Polyb. Hist. vi. 45, 4, ἀδόκιμος gore naga Λακχεδαιυμονιόυς 
ἡ tov Svapdgov τίμησις. ‘The Lacedemonians declare all the worth 
of money to be nothing.” 

ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα. This denotes in general actions inconsist- 
ent with the moral dignity of man. It is well known as a terminus 
technicus of the Stoics, and by Cicero is translated officia. 

V. 29, 30. Without any definite order the Apostle, as at 2 Tim. iii. 
2, now enumerates a long catalogue of sins, such as among the hea- 
then were connected with polytheism. It must not be left out of 
view that this picture of the corruption of morals must have been the 
more striking to the Apostle’s readers, inasmuch as they were eye- 
witnesses of the wild excess to which depravity was carried in the 
profligate metropolis. See besides the works of Neander and Meiners 
already referred to, Corn. Adami Observ. Philol. Theol. t. 11. Grotius 
and Wetstein, a. ἢ. 1. The only testimony we produce of contempo- 
raries is that of the Greek Pausanias, (Grecizx Descriptio, l. viii. 6. 2.) 
"Em ἐμοῦ δὲ (xaxia yde δὴ txt πλεῖστον ηὔξετο καὶ γὴν Te ἐπενέμε7ο πᾶσαν. 


68 CHAPTER I. ν. 29, 30. 


καὶ πόλεις πάσας) OVE θεὸς ἐγίνετο οὐδεὶς E70 ἐξ ἀνθρώπου πλὴν ὅσον λόγῳ 
χαὶ χολακείῳ πεὸς τὸ ὑπεξέχον. And that of the Roman Seneca. (De 
Ira, ]. 11. c. 8.) Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis plena sunt. Plus com- 
mittitur, quam quod possit coercitione sanari. Certatur ingenti quo- 
dam nequitiae certamine: major quotidie peccandi cupiditas, minor 
verecundia est. Expulso melioris aequiorisque respectu, quocunque 
visum est, libido se impingit; nec furtiva jam scelera sunt, preter 
oculos eunt. Adeoque in publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium 
pectoribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara sed nulla est. Numquid 
enim singuli aut pauci rupere legem? Undique, velut signo dato, ad 
fas nefasque miscendum coorti sunt. 

Tewajeouévor. Even profane authors employ the verba plenitudinis 
in reference to actions as well as dispositions. Tas, Oe of every 
kind. 

Ilopyeca is omitted in many manuscripts; by several, it is placed 
after πονηεία. ‘The Syrian reads wxeva instead of πονηεία. It is 
obvious, therefore, that either πονηξία or ποενεία is false. Judging 
from external reasons, the last must be given up. According to in- 
ternal, the first. πορνεία, if wanting, would be an omission in the 
specification of all other sins; whereas πονηξία is rendered superfluous 
by the use of καχία. Still, however, the very circumstance of πορνεία 
seeming to be absent, furnishes a reason for its having been interpo- 
lated. 

πονηρία besides xaxia may have the special meaning of cupiditas 
nocendi, malitia. Ammonius de diff. verb: xaxos πονηξοῦ διαφέρειν 
ὥσπερ ὃ axaxos Tov ἀγαθοῦ, καχὸς μὲν γὰρ ὃ mavoveyos, πονηξὸς δὲ 6 δδασ- 
τιχὸς κακοῦ. κακία may however bear the sense of wickedness, which 
Suidas adopts in this passage. δόλος, Juv. 3,41. Quid Rome fa- 
ciam? mentiri nescio. Κακοήθεια specially signifies malevolentia. 
The Vulgate translates it malignitas. Ammon expounds xaxta xe- 
xevupévy. Ψιθυξιστὴς a secret, καταλάλος an open slanderer. Θεοστυ- 
yecs may be taken passively, with the circumflex upon the last sylla- 
ble. This is its usual sense, in which it is synonymous with θεήλατος. 
Vul. Deo odibiles. But it may also be taken actively, and then it 
has the accent upon the penult, and means abhorrentes a Deo, being 
derived from θεοστύγης» a Synonyme of Geoucons, although it cannot be 
proved that compounds of the third declension, when used in an 
active sense, change the accent. Thus 'Theodoret, Gicumenius, and 
Beza. As it is human vices which are here spoken of, the active 
appears the more probable signification, and it would immediately 
lead the mind to think of those heathen mentioned by Cyprian, who, 
whenever a calamity befell them, used to cast the blame of it upon 
God, and denied a providence. Superstition, however, even begat 
a hatred of the gods, as is shown by Plutarch in his work, weed devoe- 
δαυμονίας. Ὑδρισταὶ is often, by Josephus, placed side by side with 
doe6qs, the former denoting pride towards a fellow creature, the 
latter towards God. ‘The emperors uttered the most shameful inde- 
cencies in the ears of honourable men, and forced them to actions of 


CHAPTER I. V. 31, 32. 69 


the same kind. See fearful vouchers of this fact, in the life of Helio- 
gabalus by lius Lampridius, in Script. Hist. Aug. Ὑπεξφηφάνους. 
Theoph: χαταφεόνησις πλὴν αὐτοῦ τῶν ἄλλων. ᾿Αλαζόνας ‘This vice 
defined by Plato ἕξις περοσποιητικὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἢ ἀγαθῶν μὴ ὑπαφχόντων 
Polybius (Hist. 4. 8, 1.) speaks οἵ an ἔμφυτος ἀλαζονεία among the 
AMtolians. Plautus translates ἀλαϑὼν gloriosus. Martial describes 
the manners of the Romans as personatos. ’Epeveérau κακῶν. 2 Mace. 
Vil. 31. Σὺ δὲ πάσης κακίας εὑξφετὴς γενόμενος. Philo uses the same 
expression. ‘T'acitus, Repertores flagitiorum. In these times, new 
refinements in pleasure and luxury, and new tortures and cruelties 
were invented every day. 

V. 31. ᾽᾿Ασύνεου in the Hebrew sense, in which paeds elsewhere 
appears, signifies stupid about things divine, and comprehends 
moral delinquency. Comp. Ecclesiasticus xv. 7, 8, where ἀσύνεου 
and ἀμαε)ωλοὶ are placed parallel to each other. “AcJogyo. without 
affection for relations, especially without filial and parental love. 
Emperors murdered their parents, and violated their sisters. “Aozov- 
δου is by some codices improperly omitted, perhaps from having been 
thought entirely synonymous with ἀσύνθε7ου" it has the peculiar mean- 
ing of implacable. So the Syrian and Vulgate. Polyb. (Hist. 1. 
65, 6,) speaks of a πόλεμος ἄσπονδος, a war for life or death, and 'Ta- 
citus says of the Romans of his age: Non sperandum esse, ut qui 
pacem belli amore turbarent, bellum pacis charitate deponerent. 
᾿Ανελεήμονεςς Melancthon: Crudelis est qui ledit alium atrociter sine 
justa causa, immisericors, qui, cum probabilis causa est, non mitigat 
justam asperitatem. 

V. 32. By these words the Apostle, on the one hand seeks to com- 
plete the picture of the moral corruption of the heathen, by specifying, 
as it were, its extreme point, and on the other, intends again to in- 
culcate the leading thought, that on account of that moral corruption, 
they are involved in guilt. Accordingly, he refers back to the fact 
that they have an inward law (c. ii. 14,) which in spite of the sup- 
pression of their original knowledge of God, avouches to them the 
baseness of their dispositions. With respect to his designing in 
these words to mark as it were the acme of the depravity, this may 
seem less fully attained, inasmuch as to approve of wickedness may 
be thought less criminal than the commission of it. It must, how- 
ever, be remarked, that in many instances, civil law prevents the 
breaking out of evil, and that what chiefly imparts moral worth to 
man is the nature of his dispositions or inclinations. Moreover, there 
are many manifestations of sin which emanate from the momentary 
power of passion, and are afterwards seriously repented; and hence 
it implies a higher degree of depravity, when in cold blood we can 
find satisfaction in the wickedness of others. ‘The scope of the 
Apostle is contravened, by supposing, as Grotius does, that the phi- 
losophers are here intended, as those who, even in theory, had pro- 
nounced certain sins to be lawful; Aristotle justifying revenge, and 


70 CHAPTER I. ν. 32. 


the Epicurians and Stoies sodomy and incest. The Apostle evidently 
speaks of something which applies to the heathen as such. 

Δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ equivalent to pn law or ordinance. In profane 
authors, sentence, right, statute. Melancthon, correctly: Lex na- 
turze eademque Dei; est enim lux a Deo in mentibus nostris condita. 

ἀξιοι θανάτου. @avayos may either be taken in a more extensive 
sense for misery, punishment, or in a more confined for death, the 
greatest of all bodily punishments for the greatest of all transgres- 
sions, defection from God, which is manifest in these sins. 

We have still to mention another reading, given among the Greeks 
by Isidorus Pelusiota, so early as the fifth century, and which has 
found its way into the Vulgate: οὐ μόνον οἱ ποιοῦν7ες αὐτὼ ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐ 
cvvevdoxorv7es. It is, however, neither confirmed by external au- 
thority, nor does it harmonize with the context or the scope of the 
Apostle. And there are just as few reasons, external and internal, 
to approve of the interpolation of od συνῆχαν before ὅτι», which has 
been made in some later codices and the Vulgate, which thus trans- 
lates: Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent non intellexerunt quoniam 
(quod) .... morte digni sunt. This reading has obviously had its 
source in the inability of those who praposed it to seize the profound 
meaning in the words of Paul, which led them to substitute another, 
in order to escape from their embarrassment. 


CHAPTER SECOND. 


ARGUMENT. 


_ Arter having thus described the miserable state of the heathen through sin, 
the Apostle turns to the Jews, who looked upon themselves as greatly su- 
perior; and at first, by evident allusions, without directly naming them, but 
afterwards using undisguised rebukes, he shows that their condition is 
even worse than that of the heathen, because, while the perfect knowledge 
with which they are favoured, and on which they place reliance, increases 
their responsibility, they still manifested no greater holiness in their life. 
Accordingly God, whose decisions are never influenced by partiality, must 
necessarily judge the Jews, supposing their dispositions to be worse, by a 
severer rule than the heathen. 


DIVISION. 


1. The mere knowledge of what is good does not free from sin. V. 1—11. 

2. God judges of men according to the different means of grace and degrees 
of knowledge vouchsafed to them. V. 12—16. 

3: By this rule, the Jew, who is favoured with a variety of means of grace 
and superior knowledge, and still breaks the law, is worse than the 
heathen, who, without these external advantages, is faithful to the law 
within him. V. 17—29. 


PAR ΤΥ. 


THE MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WHICH IS GOOD DOES NOT EXEMPT 
FROM SIN. v. 1--ὶ], : 

V. 1. Ir entered into the plan of the Apostle to speak of the Jews 
as well as the Gentiles, and prove to them also their need of salva- 
tion. A natural transition to this subject here presented itself. In 
the last verse of the first chapter, he incidentally mentioned that the 
heathen, although possessing a knowledge of the Divine will, ap- 
proved notwithstanding of sin; and this very naturally called his 
countrymen, the Jews, to his remembrance, who were always ready 
to condemn the heathen as sinners, and who might, from the judg- 
ment he had pronounced, have taken occasion for vain glory. He 
does not as yet, however, openly state the contrast between those 
who recognize sin to be criminal, and yet approve of and take plea- 
sure in it, and those who, although they condemn, still practise if, as 


“9, CHAPTER II. V. ]. 


a contrast obtaining between heathens and Jews; but he states it, 
which indeed it is, as one applicable to all men. He thus in some 
sort, divides mankind into avowed sinners and pretended saints. In 
a way precisely similar, he had said in v. xvill. 6. 1, 2nd πᾶσαν aoé- 
δειαν τῶν κατεχόντων, Where the truth is brought forward as of univer- 
sal application. Bugenhagen: Hec non solum de Judzis accipienda, 
verum de omnibus hominibus qui faciles sunt ad judicandum alios, 
tamen precipue de Judzis dicuntur. ‘That St. Paul, in this general 
address, has the Jews principally in view, appears more clearly even 
at the 4th and 5th verse, and at the 11th it comes fully into light. 
Augustine (Prop, 8.) and Stolz take the same view. The context is 
decisive against supposing with Clericus, that he here speaks of the 
Gentile philosophers, or with Chrysostom, Theodoret and Grotius, 
of the Gentile magistrates. It is also decisive against the opinion of 
Calvin, that he alludes to the mutual judgments which the heathens 
passed upon each other. 

Aw. ‘To what this causal particle refers, it is not easy to say, as 
we should rather have expected one expressive of a contrast; such 
as ἀλλά. We must presume, that the Apostle had in view, what does 
not at once meet the eye, a causal connection between the inexcusa- 
bleness of the person judging, and tlie 32d verse; and this, as Gro- 
tius has remarked, is just that connection which we have already 
sought to trace. He very frequently appends a long explication to 
a thought founded but not enunciated, or perhaps only incidentally 
expressed in the preceding context. ‘The διὸ here denotes some 
such sequence of ideas as the following. ‘I have upbraided those 
who, having a sense of what is right, approve of sin in others. By 
this, however, it is not meant that Crery one is justified who merely 
condemns his neighbour.” 

ὦ ἀνθξωπε. Donatus upon erent. Adelph. i. 2, 31. Homo de 
iis dicimus, quos parce reprehendimus. So Plut. De Superstitione, 
C. 7: ἔα me, ἄνθρωπε; διδόναι δίκην. 

ἐν ᾧ may signify after the Hebrew, because that, like wx3; so 
Erasmus and Beza. It may also be taken in the Hebrew accepta- 
lion, in the matter wherein. So the Vulgate. This gives force to 
the conclusion. 

xevvers, according to the Hebrew, synonymous with χαταχείνω. It 
may, perhaps, appear extraordinary in the Apostle to assume, as he 
here does, that the Jews would at once acknowledge that with which 
he charges them. But, in the first place, he as yet speaks, withdut 
having named the Jew, and only covertly summons him, as it were, 
to search his conscience; just as Jesus did with the Pharisees, in the 
case of the adulteress. Moreover, it must also be remarked, that at 
this period, depravity among the Jews was unprecedentedly great. 
In proof of which, we require only to open Josephus, and peruse his 
delineation of the life of the courtiers, and history of the court of 
Herod the Great. 

V.2. The connection of this with the preceding verse is well 


CHAPTER II. Vv. 2; 3, 4. 73 


given by Calvin: Concilium Pauli est blanditias hypocritis excutere, 
ne se magnum aliquod adeptos putent, si vel a mundo laudentur, vel 
se ipsi absolvant; quia longe aliud examen eos in celo maneat. 

οἴδαμεν. Koppe deems that there is here an allusion to the Jews, 
who boasted that they alone possessed the true knowledge. But the 
Apostle has rather in view, those apprehensions of a divine judgment, 
which are spread among all mankind, and to which he had alluded 
in verse 32. Grotius: Ipsa ratio nos docet. 

χατὰ ἀλήθειαν in profane authors, is the common form of assevera- 
tion; in like manner as ὄντως, or τὸ ἀληθές. The Hellenistic dialect 
generally uses ἐν ἀληθείᾳ OY ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας in this sense. In the LXX. 
however, zac’ ἀλήθειαν signifies agreeably to truth or justice. 
According to which Beza expounds correctly: Ex ipsius rei natura, 
de qua apud Dei tribunal dijudicanda queritur, non ex ulla rect 
specie. ‘I'his signification likewise agrees better with the train of 
thought, as Paul is speaking against hypocrites. 

V. 3. The nerve of the first part of the chapter. Knowledge 
without corresponding dispositions is of no avail. Pelagius: Si enim 
tu peecatorem tibi similem judicas, quanto magis Deus justus te ju- 
dicabit injustum? Chrysostom: τὸ σὸν οὐχ ἐξέφυγες xecua, καὶ τὸ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ διαφεύξῃ.ἢ 

V. 4. The Apostle presupposes that the hypocrite, or, to take it 
now more specially, the Jew, will be too hardened to acknowledge 
his sinfulness, and will rather choose to infer his innocence from his 
impunity, which is the common character of hypocrisy; he therefore 
appeals pointedly to another life. Could it be supposed that he here 
speaks of the Israelites as a people collectively, which is not probable, 
the Jew might perhaps have concluded from the permanence of the 
theocracy, the favour of God towards him. Beza, who imagines the 
punishment of the heathen to be intended, remarks, that from the 
prosperity and growth of the Roman empire, they inferred that they 
enjoyed the divine approval. But it is quite obvious that the Apostle 
does not again revert to the heathen. ‘The substance of the whole 
argument is thus given by Theophylact: Ei δὲ διὰ τὸ μήπω xoracdnvat, 
καταφρονεῖς TOV πλούτου τῆς ἀγαθότητος; αὐ7ὸ TovTO εἰς πλείω σου χολασίν 
ἐστιν. Ἢ γὰξ μαχροθυμία, τούς μὲν πρὸς διόρθωσιν αὐτῇ HEw@pméEVOLS, σωτήξιος" 
τοῖς δὲ εἰς πδοσθήχην ἁμαφτίας δαπανῶσιν αὐγὴν, τιμωρίας μείζονός ἐστιν 
ἀφορμή" ov maga τὴν αὐτῆς φύσιν, ἀλλὰ Maeda τήν ἐκείνων σχληφότητα.ἷ 

πλοῦτος τῆς χρηστότητος. The Hellenists are fond of translating the 
Hebrew 35 by πλοῦτος. Ps. Ixix. 16; cvi. 7. Χρηστότης is love in 


ἕ Bric have not escaped your own judgment, and shall you escape that of 
od? 

+ If you take occasion from your impunity hitherto, to despise the riches 
of his goodness, that itself will aggravate your punishment. For to those 
who improve it for their amendment, his long-suffering is of saving efficacy, 
but to such as waste it in accumulating sin, it is the occasion of a doom 
more severe; not by reason of its own nature, but of their hardness. 


10 


74 CHAPTER II. Vv. 4, 5, 6. 


general. ἀνοχὴ and waxeoSvpia is this love modified by God’s rela- 
tion to sinners. 

᾿Αγνοῶν. ᾿Αγνοέω signifies not merely not to know, but not to 
acknowledge or consider. So in the Hebrew py, and also in the 
Hellenistic, Wisdom of Solomon, vii. 22. 

τὸ χρηστόν. ‘The neuter adjective for the substantive χρηστόγης» as 
frequently occurs. See i. 19. 

“Ayer. In the Hebrew, as in other languages, verbs in the present 
often denote endeavour. (S. Glassius, Philol. saera, p. 765.) So 
here seeks to lead thee. 

V.5. By neglecting to take advantage of the long-suffering of God 
for his salvation, man adds impenitence to his sinfulness, and thus 
makes an accumulation of guilt. This is called SycovecSew, which 
the LXX. use instead of \¥x, Amos iii. 10, and also for32¥. In the 
same manner the Rabbins employ 731 metaphorically. Bava Bathra, 
f. xi. 2. Hardness of heart betokens a deficiency of love. Love in- 
clines to the reception of the beloved object; hence, susceptibility for 
the μαχξοθυμία of God. 

Ἔν ἡμέξᾳ deyys does not merely stand for εἰς ἡμέξαν. ‘The expres- 
sion is pictorial; ‘The Apostle figuring to himself the event. ‘The 
Old Testament, agreeably to the idea of a retribution which pervades 
it, always represents the Divine blessing as coming after a previous 
time of sifting and purification. Such seasons are called x12 DY, 
sometimes Oj7 OV Ez. xxii. 24.—" ἣν OY Zeph. 11. 2,3. The New 
Testament proclaims such a period of general sifting; after which, 
the kingdom of Christ, purified from all the dross of evil and sin, 
shall be gloriously established. ‘This great period bears particularly 
the name of ἡμέξα seyns Rev. vi. 17, also ἡ μέλλουσα, and ἡ texouévy 
éeyyj- Ἡμέξα is figurative. In the Koran it is even more emphatic, 
where the day of judgment is called the Hour, c. 9, Sura 6. 

V. 6. The Zeya of a man, are the manifestation of his disposition. 
His disposition cannot be sanctified otherwise than by his being filled 
with the love of God, and that can only take place when he is pene- 
trated with the belief of things divine. Hence, the texts in which 
salvation is made dependent upon works, do not stand in contradic- 
tion to those, where it is made to depend upon religious faith. Ina 
certain degree, even the morality of the heathen may rest upon re- 
ligious faith, and in so far be pure. Accordingly, the Apostle does 
not here mean the Zeya vouov, which only in an outward manner, cor- 
respond with the requirements of a holy God, but the Zeya ἀγαθά. 
Whether at all, and to what extent, it is possible for man without the 
redeeming influence of the Spirit of Christ, to execute such teya ἀγα- 
6a, and yield entire satisfaction to the law of God, are questions 
which he leaves totally untouched. His only object is to designate 
two distinct classes of men; those who, possessing moral seriousness, 
really labour in their actions to fulfil the law, and those who, pretend- 
ing to be holy, condemn others, and deceive themselves about their 
own condition. 


CHAPTER Il. Vv. 7, 8. 75 


V. 7. xad’ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ayaSov. Ὑπομονὴ is perseverance. In 
this sense, the verb is used by classical authors. Plato de Leg. x. 9. 
In Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. vii. c. 1. § 30, it signifies the continuance of 
an enemy’s attack. So Gicumenius: ὑπομονὴν εἰπὼν, γενναίως ἔχειν 
διδάσκει πρὸς τοὺς rteveacuors.* Paul wishes to express that occa- 
sional virtuous emotions are not enough, but that the direction of the 
character must be habitually towards what is good. It is clear from 
the union of these words with @yvovc:, that he presupposes the ex- 
istence of a disposition, and regards perseverance in actions as the 
symptom of a lively principle within. 

᾿ς Δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν is a Hendiatria borrowed from the 
Hebrew, and should be translated a glorious and honourable im- 
mortality. Reversely, Ambrose considers ἀφθαρσίαν, as a predicate 
of σιμὴν and this gives him occasion to make the beautiful remark. 
‘« Paul here speaks of the superior degree of glory which awaits the 
Christian in the life to come. In presenti enim honor vel gloria, 
frequenter amittitur, quia corruptibilis est qui dat, et quod dat, et qui 
accipit.”” Tur is often coupled with δόξα, Heb. ii. 7, 1 Tim. i. 17, 
especially 1 Pet. i. 7. And then the two words answer to 777) ΓΙ. 
Chrysostom has the following fine observation upon them as here 
used. ‘‘ Behold how in discoursing of the things to come, being 
unable to describe them, he but calls them glory and honour. For 
as they surpass all that is human, human things cannot supply any 
image adequate to represent them. From among the objects of this 
earth, however, which seem to us the brightest, he instances, (and he 
could do no more,) glory, honour, and life.” CX&cumenius does 
violence to the language, when he here supposes a hyperbaton, and 
construes the words in the following manner: τοῦς καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν teyou 
ἀγαθοῦ ζητοῦσι Gury αἰώνιον, ἀποδώσει δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ apPagovar. 
Equally violent and unnecessary is the procedure of Beza and Her- 
zog, who construe Yeyou ἀγαθοῦ with δόξαν, and thus translate: Qui 
secundum patientem exspectationem querunt boni operis gloriam. In 
that case, ἀφθαφσία would require to be construed in like manner with 
ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ, which would be totally unintelligible. 

V.8. τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐφιθείας. ᾽Εξ forms with the noun a periphrasis for the 
adjective, as in Phil. i. 16and 17, where we have both οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης and οἱ 
ἐξ ἐριθείας. So also οἱ ἐκ στοᾶς and οἱ 2x neevrouns, LJohniv.5. ‘Theo- 
phylact explains it, πονήξοι ἀπὸ praoverxias. Beza: Litigiosi sive dog- 
mata sive mores spectentur. Pelagius: Contentiosus qui aliquid 
contra suam conscientiam nititur defensare. ‘This would be consist- 
ent with the ordinary usage of the Greek language. The Hellenistic 
sense of the word, however, is greatly preferable, corresponding as 
it does with the usual signification of 1 770, to be stubborn, which is 
specially employed to characterize the wicked, Deut. xxi. 20. Hence 
the Septuagint have also ἐφεϑύίζειν τὸν Seov and ted2ew τῷ θεῷ. In the 
Ethiopian version, it is rendered the apostate. 


* By the word perseverance he teaches us vigorously to resist temptation. 


76 CHAPTER Il. v. 8, 9. 


᾿Απειϑδοῦσι μὲν τῇ ἀληδεὶᾳφ. What ἀλήδεια is here meant? It ἰδ. 
most natural to suppose the same which was treated of in the first 
chapter, viz. the universal, moral, and religious sense. Correctly 
Calvin: Veritatis nomine simpliciter regula divine voluntatis, que 
sola veritatis lux est, designatur. Nihil medium est quominus in 
peccati servitium mox concedant, qui subjugari a Domini lege nolu- 
erunt. Pelagius and Gicumenius take it in a more restricted sense, 
viz. the truth of the gospel; and Ambrose in a narrower still, the 
truth that there is an eternal judgment. ‘The ἀπειθέω signifies a 
headstrong intentional sinning. 'Theodoret: οὐ τοῖς ἐκ πεξιστάσεῶς 
τινος ὀλυσϑαίνουσιν εἰς αὐτὴν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μετὰ πολλῆς αὐτὴν μετιοῦσι σπου- 
δῆς.Ὁ 

πειδομένουις δὲς Cicumenius ἑκὼν ae πείϑεταυ ὃ πειϑόμενος. ᾿Αδιχίᾳ 
is opposed, as in 18th verse of the 1st chapter, to ἀληδεύᾳ, unrighteous- 
ness, sinful inclinations, which withstand the moral consciousness. 
The terms δυμὸς xai deyq are probably synonymous, and both are 
used to strengthen the emphasis. A difference between them may, 
however, be discovered. Ammonius: Θυμὸς μὲν ἐστὶ πρόσκαιρος, ὀξγὴ 
δὲ πολυχεόνιος μνησικακία. Eustathius makes ϑυμὸς anger rising 
within, ὀργὴ vented outwardly. When aversion and positive anger 
at sin, and, in so far, penal justice, are ascribed to God, we must 
necessarily abstract the element of passion and irregularity, which 
usually mingles with these emotions in human beings, and is even 
implied in the terms δυμὸς and ὀργή. There is here an anomaly in 
the syntax, seeing that these words, like ϑωὴν αἰώνιον ought to stand 
in the accusative: but while in that case, Paul supplies ἀποδώσει; in 
the present he probably had χαταβήσεται in his mind. 

V.9. This and the tenth verse contain a summary of what was 
said in verses 6, 7, and 8; the Apostle besides, expressly intimating 
to whom his words in these former verses were meant to apply, viz. 
to Jews and Heathen. Beza: Thesis posterior ad hypothesin appli- 
catur. A verb requires to be supplied to ini πᾶσαν ψυχήν. AS δυμὸς 
καὶ 6eyn expressed what are the effects of human sin upon God, so do 
Sardes and στενοχωρία the manifestation of these effects towards man. 
The two words are frequently coupled in profane authors, as p13) 
my the synonymous ones are in Hebrew, Is. xxx. 6. The distine- 
tion between them, if a distinction must be made, is suggested by 
Paul himself in 2 Cor. iv. 8, SarBouevor, dan’ οὐ orevoxyoeordmevor, Where, 
by the first, he intends outward calamities; by the second, secret 
anguish. 

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχήν. Ambrosius: Desuper animam dicit, ut spiritua- 
lem pcnam intelligas, non corporalem, quia animam invisibilibus 
penis arctabitur. It is better, as Pelagius observes, to take ψυχὴν as 
like 25) paraphrastiec for person. 

᾿Ιουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος. πρῶτον is here to be rendered 


* Not those who fall into it by some misfortune, but those who pursue it 
with great eagerness. 


CHAPTER 11. v. 10, 11, 12. ~ "ha 


in the first instance, and the import of the words is, that Divine jus- 
tice will begin by manifesting itself upon those who stood in the 
most defined and intimate relation to it. It will be the Jews who 
shall, as it were, first make their appearance before the judgment seat, 
and that, in consequence of their close connection with God. Pre- 
cisely the same is the meaning of πρῶτον in the similar expression, 
c.i. 8. And hence, the explication here given of it by Origen and 
Chrysostom, although invoking a just principle, is not admissible. 
They suppose it to express, that the Jews, as having possessed a 
greater measure of knowledge, will be so much the more severely 
punished. Chrysostom: ‘O γὰρ πλείονος ἀπολαύσας τῆς δυδασκαλίας» 
μείξονα ἂν εἴη καὶ τιμωρφίαν ἀξιος ὑπομεῦναν παξανομὼν.ἢ 

V. 10 and 11. Δόξα xai τιμὴ is the Hebrew 111717. Ἑϊρήνη is 
pow salvation, blessing, xwi 0°19 to receive a person, kindly enter- 
tain, favour; and then in a bad sense, when applied to a judge, fo 
regard the person instead of the cause. ‘This in the New ‘Testa- 
ment is the sense of πεόσωπον λαμβάνειν OF εἰς πρόσωπον βλέπειν. What 
the Apostle therefore means to say is, that in the judgment, God will 
not favour the Jew for the sake of his person, 7. e. because he is a 


Jew, but look only to the merits of the case, even purity and holi- 
ness. 


Pan Ter: 


GOD JUDGES MEN ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENT MEANS OF GRACE 
AND DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE VOUCHSAFED TO THEM. v. 12—16. 


V. 12. The general proposition which the Apostle had announced 
in verse 11, he now applies to the particular case. If God were to 
favour the Jews, as such, he would try them by the lower standard, 
according to which he tries the heathen. Correctly Gicumenius: 
Δεῖξαυ θέλευ ἐν δνο ἁμαφτήσασιν ᾿Ιουδαίῳ τε καὶ ἀχξοβύστῳ; χεῖξον τὸν Ἴου- 
δαῖον τιμωξεῦσθαί, ὅσῳ καὶ νόμου ὁδηγοῦ εὐποξήσας ἥμαξτεν.-....«ὅσῳ πλείο- 
νος ἀπήλαυσεν ἐπιμελείας, τοσούτῳ μείζονα δώσει δίχην.Ἷ 

᾿Ανόμως is commonly equivalent to παφανόμος" but here to χωεὶς νό- 
μου. Compare a passage which throws light upon it, 1 Cor. ix. 21. 
We must not, however, strictly assume that the heathen knew nothing 


* For he that has had the advantage of better instruction, must deserve to 
endure a greater punishment when he transgresses. 

+ He wishes to show, that in the case of a Jew and a Gentile, having sin- 
ned, the Jew, inasmuch as he has had the advantage of the law to direct him, 


is more severely punished. In proportion to the care bestowed upon him 
will be the heaviness of his chastisement. 


78 CHAPTER Il. v. 12, 13. 


of a Divine law. The νόμος here meant is the will of God, in so far 
as it was expressed by the law of Moses. In verse 15, the Divine 
law is referred to as written upon the heart of the heathen. 
᾿Απολλύεσθαυ, like 128 to which in the LXX. it answers to become 
wretched, be brought to dishonour, Ecclesiasticus: Βασιλεὺς ἀπαύδευ- 
τος ἀπολεὺ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. CXcumenius explains the ἀνόμως in this 
second passage, οὐ μετὰ ἀκριβείας νόμου, ὃ δηλοῦ τὴν σύμμετεον ἀπώλειαν. 

Ἔν νόμῳ Signifies as much as ἔννομος; used by Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 21, 
having the law. In like manner, οὗ ἐν πεξιτομῇ, those who are cir- 
cumcised. 

xevonoovrat. ‘The Vulgate, judicare. ‘The ordinary signification 
to condemn is preferable. 

διὰ νόμον. As the voice of the moral sense, which the perverse 
and ungodly bias of the will may now sometimes overpower, but 
which nothing can destroy, shall bear testimony against the heathen, 
so against the subjects of the theocracy, shall the declaration of the 
will of God, once engraven upon stone, and therefore never to be 
effaced. Kant and Fichte in the Critik aller Offenbarung, draw our 
attention to the fact, that it is possible for man to doubt whether the 
voice of the moral law in his heart be really from God, and that hence 
arises a necessity for an external discovery and ratification of it, in 
order to establish its divinity. We have to add, in reference to this 
passage, that it is also possible for the inward judge to be deceived, 
and to have his eye obscured, whereas, the law, as externally re- 
vealed, is unalterable. Hence, a more inexorable judgment awaits 
the Jews. The thought in general is as follows:—‘ The decisions 
of God are always made with a regard to the particular relations of 
the party, and hence, both Jew and Greek shall, each in his own 
way, be proved guilty before him.” 

V. 13. In this and in the following verse, the Apostle appends an 
explanation of what he had said. In the one, he justifies himself 
from the possible imputation of lowering too far the Israelitish law; 
in the other, from the objections of those who might find fault with 
his ascribing the possession of a law to the heathen no less than to 
the Jew. Itis impossible for man to conceal from himself the need 
he has of salvation, and the secret longing which he feels for some 
certainty as to the mode of attaining it, a sentiment which is itself a 
spark kindled by God. At the same time, however, the tendency to 
seek the blessedness for which he sighs in the creature instead of the 
Creator, is so strong, that he would fain come to a compromise with 
the desires of his soul, and secure what he wants by external means, 
in order to resign himself undisturbed to the enjoyment of what is 
unconnected with God. This perverted tendency is particularly 
apparent in Judaism and Catholicism. According to the intention 
of God, the law should only have been the means of attaining a 
higher end, even holiness. In place of which, Israel wished to con- 
vert the means into the end, and imagined that in the mere posses- 
sion of the law, they held a magical earnest of salvation. The word 


CHAPTER 11. v. 14, 15. 79 


&xeoarjs is to be explained by the fact, that to the great majority of 
the Jewish people the Mosaic law was known, not by personal read- 
ing, but by listening to the Sabbath lessons. Even the Greeks, how- 
ever, sometimes styled readers οἱ ἀχούοντες. Polyb. Hist. i. 13, 6. 
Frequently also as ib. ix. 1, 2, ἀκροατής. Δικχαιοῦσθαιν to be declared 
innocent. 

V. 14. Chrysostom: οὐκ ἐχβάλλω τὸν νόμον, Φησὶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐντεῦθεν 
δικαιὼ τὰ ἔθνη. Ὅταν yap. ‘The yap refers to ποιεῖν τὸν νόμον, which 
the Apostle here ascribes to the heathen, likewise annexing the proof, 
that, to a certain degree, they always possess alaw. Φύσει» the same 
as sponte, by innate instinct. Φύσις denotes among classical authors 
ingenium, nativa virtus. Elsewhere it is opposed to πλαστῶς, and 
equivalent to ὄντως. 

τὼ TOV νόμου OF τὸν νόμον ποιεῖν, OF τὸν νόμον πράσσειν. 25, 0 fulfil 
the law. When they do so, their own moral consciousness is their 
rule. ‘There is a parallel passage Arist. Ethic. iv. 14. ὁ δὴ χαρίεις 
xar ἐλεύθεφος οὕτως ἕξευ οἷον νόμος ὧν ἑαυτῷ. ‘The Rabbins also dis- 
tinguish between M010") Myav ΠῚ see Buxt. Lex. p. 1349. It may 
be objected to this interpretation, that it seems to imply, that the 
heathen sometimes really fulfilled the law of God. This, however, 
cannot be the meaning of the Apostle, for he had before described 
them as all involved in moral obduration and perversity. It has 
accordingly been suggested to give xovery τὰ τοῦ vouov, the meaning 
of Idem facere quod lex facit, 7d. est. honesta precipere, turpia ve- 
tare. So first Beza, and after him, Elsner, Capellus, Limborch, 
Flatt and others. ‘Taking the words in this signification, they may 
be easily connected with what follows. But it is obvious, that ποιεῦν 
τὰ Tov νόμου requires to be interpreted in the same sense as that in 
which ποιεῦν τὸν νόμον is so frequently used; it seems also manifestly 
to correspond with the ποιηταὺ νόμου of the 13th verse. Moreover, it 
cannot be said that in the preceding delineation of the depravity of the 
heathen, the Apostle meant to comprehend every individual, without 
exception, and deny the possibility of at least an exterior morality. 
Now it is only of such an outward conformity to the law, that he 
here speaks, and to that in many of the relations of life, he never 
would have disputed the claims of the heathen. We have still far- 
ther to add, that when the Gentile contemplated the νόμος yeanros 
within him, as a commandment inscribed by God himself upon his 
heart, he might feel himself excited to obedience by a reverential awe 
of what is holy. This feeling, although it did not govern men’s 
lives among the Greeks, comes yet nobly forward in many senti- 
ments of the tragic poets. ‘To cite one example, see the admirable 
chorus upon conscience, in Gidipus Tyr. v. 845. 

V. 15. A confirmation of the 14th verse, St. Paul means to bring 
proof, that such actions of the heathen, as are conformable to law, 
really have their basis upon an inward law in their breast, For this 


* I do not reject the law, but even from thence I justify the Gentiles. 


80 CHAPTER Ii. v. 15. 


_ purpose he appeals to the conflict which takes place between the 
opposite tendencies of the will in man, and to the judgments pro- 
nounced upon these by the moral sense. He again uses ofzwes as a 
connexive, which must here also be resolved by yae, quasi ἐνδείκνυν- 
var γάρ. ‘This verb is not to be interpreted, as Grotius has done, by 
the gloss, vite scilicet innocentia. ‘The object of the Apostle is to 
account for the manifestations of a purer morality among the heathen, 
by the revelation of the will of God within them, consequently, ἐν- 
devxvevrae Signifies that such a law becomes apparent upon a strict 
search of the heart. What then, it may be asked, is the meaning of 
Zeyov in its connection with νόμου The simplest way is to under- 
stand it collectively in the sense in which τὰ Zeya τοῦ νόμου is always 
found, ‘* they show the works prescribed by the law within them.” 
So Theophylact and the majority of the ancients. It is improbable, 
however, that the singular should be used in a sense which the plu- 
ral has once been received as exclusively expressing, as is the case, 
unless in 1 Thessalonians i. 3, we take Zeyov πίστεως for τὰ teya τῆς 
muotews, Which is done by Vorstius de Hebr. N. T. p. 256. ‘The 
expositors who, in verse 14, understand ποιεῖν τὼ τοῦ νόμου fo execute 
the function of the law, also give to ἔδγον the sense of officium, ne- 
gotium. Grotius, who in the interpretation of that verse, is by no 
means explicit, here defines ἔργον, Id quod Jex in Judzis efficit, nempe 
cognitionem liciti et illiciti. Legis virtus est imperare, vetare, per- 
mittere, punire. De Wette renders it, “das Thun des Gesetzes.’’ 
This meaning of ?eyoy is sufficiently well grounded in the use of the 
language, but it seems to coincide exactly with the interpretation 
stated of ποιεῖν τὰ τοῦ νόμου. Hence, it only remains to consider %eyoy 
as periphrastic, which Palairet, Wolf, Schleusner, and others do. In 
justification of this use, may be instanced the following passages from 
classical authors. Polynus: (Strat. 1. i. 6. 18.) τοὺ χογιοῦ τὸ ἔξγον 
ἐπιϑαίνει τῇδε. Diogenes Laert. (Proem. ad Hist. Phil.) τὸ τῆς φιλο- 
σοφίας ἔφγον ἔνιοι φασὶν ἀπὸ BagBagwyv ἄρξαι. The periphrastic use of 
χεήμα and πράγμα is well known. See Viger, p. 159. As these 
words are not always, however, purely pleonastic, so neither also, 
would zeyov in the present instance be, but denote almost as much 
as ὑπόστασις, Which Erasmus conjectured. Seiler, in this view, trans- 
lates the contents of the law, Michaelis, the substance. Bolten, 6. 
ili. 20, even renders τὼ teya τοῦ νόμου, the contents of the law, 
and so also Con. Vorstius. In support of this use of Zeyov, might be 
cited Baruch vi. 51, where Θεοὺ Zeyor is used for Θεῖον" the interpre- 
tation of it, as virtus operosa, given by Schleusner, in his Thesaurus 
in LXX., can by no means be received. It is found in the same 
sense as in the present passage, in Eph. iv. 12, and perhaps also 1 
Thess. i. 3. - 

συμμαξτυρφούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως. It may be questioned, 
whether St. Paul under συνείδησις, and afterwards under λογισμοὶ, IN- 
tends something different from the νόμος γεαπτὸς ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις. In 
that case, these three clauses of the verse would require to be made 


CHAPTER 11. Vv. 15. 81 


co-ordinate, as three distinct proofs of the fact, that the acts of the 
heathen, which are conformable to law, really emanate from a law 
existing within them. This has been done by Luther, and the ex- 
positor Heming. But although it may be defended upon good 
grounds, the more natural way is to subordinate the second and third 
clause to the first, and regard them as an explanatory epexegesis. 
The expression νόμος γραπτὸς was not one of ordinary use. Paul, 
therefore, explains it by terms more familiar, and which point at the 
same time to the facts by which he was justified, in employing so 
uncommon an expression. By νόμος γξαπτὸς, Paul meant the συνεί- 
dyots, that which constitutes the bond of relationship between man 
‘and God, and which discovers itself, as a sense of what is just and 
good. One might, perhaps, lay weight upon the σὺν in συμμαξτυξού- 
ons, and refer it either to the νόμος γεαπτὸς or to the ταῦς xaedvars. "he 
συνείδησις, however, must be considered as identical with the νόμος 
yeanros’ the xaegdva, or the disposition, gives a testimony only in 
virtue of the νόμος γεαπτὸς within it, and hence it cannot be well con- 
sidered as another and a distinct witness besides the συνείδησις. Ac- 
cordingly we take the compound in the sense of the simple word. 
Συνευδέναν likewise means knowing along with another, but the 
sense of simul sciendi frequently disappears, and hence it is construed 
with the dative of the thing. See Plato Phedon, p. 92. With re- 
spect to the third clause, it is again an epexegesis and elucidation 
of the second, to wit, ‘‘ the direct moral consciousness of man is the 
offspring of certain thoughts which arise in the reflexion.”” Μεταξὺ 
ἀλλήλων. μεταξὺ 15 here equivalent to ἐναλλάξ. So the Syrian. The 
Vulgate renders it invicem. It is used in the same sense, Mat. xviii. 
15, Acts xv. 9. The antithesis which it marks is the complaint of 
one party before a tribunal, and the defence of another, here repre- 
sented as taking place in the conscience of the individual. 
Κατηγοδούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένον Must not, as has been done by 
CEcumenius and Sebastian Schmidt, be referred to different persons, 
of whom the one justifies, while the other condemns the dictates of 
the conscience. ‘The apostle speaks of the twofold action of the 
conscience in one and the same individual. ‘To both verbs it will be 
best to supply ἄνθξωπον as the object, although perhaps ἑαυτοὺς would 
answer better to μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. It is not, however, the dictates of 
conscience which mutually accuse and excuse each other, but it is 
these which approve or disapprove the inclinations and desires. A 
parallel passage may be found in the Wisdom of Solomon, iv. 20, 
and in Philo, de Decal. p. 756: ed. Frankf. Ὃ μὲν ἐν ἑκάστῃ ψυχῇ 
συνουχὼν xal συμπεφυκχὼς ἔλεγχος» ὡς μὲν κατήγορος GITLATAL, KATH YOEEL, 
δυσωπεῖ, πάλιν δὲ ὡς διχαστὴς διδάσχευν νουθετ εἰ.) παξαινεῖγ μεταϑάλλεσθαιυ. Ἐ 
The Rabbins also called the conscience SUP the accuser. ‘This 


* That conviction, which is the innate inhabitant of every soul, like an 
accuser, censures, charges, and upbraids; and again, as a judge, teaches, 
admonishes, and exhorts to repent. 


82 CHAPTER 11. v. 16. 


verse has been happily paraphrased by Erasmus: Etenim cum na- 
tiones a lege Mosaica aliene, ultro nature ductu, que lege jubentur, 
faciunt; quamvis nullo legis Mosaice prescripto moneantur, tamen 
ipsi sibi legis vice sunt, propterea quod rem legis exprimunt, non 
tabulis sed ipsis mentibus insculpte, et quidquid apud eos, qui sub 
lege vivunt, geri solet apud tribunal, hoc in istorum pectore geritur, 
dum pro te aut adversum te testimonium dicit conscientia. 

V. 16. The connection of this with the preceding context has fur- 
nished grammatical difficulties for the expositors, although, in regard 
to the sense, no doubt can be entertained as to its close coherence. 
The great majority have extricated themselves by placing verses 13, 
14, and 15 within parenthesis, in order thus to bring ἐν ἡμέρῳ into 
immediate connection with χειθήσονται. So Grotius, Limborch, Wolf, 
and Winer. But as Heumann has remarked, so long a parenthesis 
does not seem natural from the pen of a person of so fervid a tem- 
perament as Paul, and can only be explained on the supposition that 
he added these verses upon a subsequent perusal of the Epistle. 
This way of evading difficulties, however, to which Heumann has 
frequent recourse, is likewise of very questionable propriety. But 
leaving the character of Paul out of yiew, there exists such a strong 
inward coherence between verses 13, 14, 15, and so close a connec- 
tion of verse 13 with verse 12, that the supposition of a parenthesis 
is very improbable, and that only as the result of anxious search, 
could the expedient of annexing verse 16 to verse 12 have been 
thought of. Neither can we admit, what Heumann also suggests, 
and Beza in his translation actually practises, viz. to enclose verses 
14 and 15 only; because, in the first place, verse 14 is as closely 
united to verse 13 as verse 13 to verse 12; and, secondly, verse 14 
contains an evident antithesis to verse 17. In fine, it will not answer 
to make verse 15 by itself parenthetic seeing that dices marks a 
closely connected continuation of verse 14. ‘The method adopted by 
Koppe and Rosenmiiller to escape from the difficulty is the most 
forced of all. ‘The former gives to μεταξὺ the meaning of μετέπειτα,» 
which it undeniably has, and then ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων 
ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων becomes a genitive absolute, to which ἑαυτῶν is to 
be supplied. He farther connects μεταξὺ with ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, and thus ob- 
tains the following artificial translation: ‘Their own conscience tells 
them, and their principles shall hereafter accuse or excuse them on 
the day when God shal] judge.”” Far better than all these, is the 
simple mode of construction proposed by Bengel, who unites ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 
with ἐνδεύκνυνταν as may well be done, when the second and third 
clauses of the fifteenth verse are subordinated to the first. He then 
observes in explanation: Quale quidquid fuit, tale cum conspicietur, 
definietur et manebit. In illo die constabit illud in cordibus seriptum 
legis, apologiam etiam aliquam recte factorum conjunctam habens, 
quamvis homo in judicto succumbat, semet accusatore, propter cetera. 
Idque infert accusationem vel etiam defensionem (a majore ad minus 
procedendo) in hac quoque vita constantem, quoties vel ipsum repre- 


CHAPTER 11. ν. 16. : 83 


sentatur homini judicium futurum, vel preludia ejus in conscientia, 
homine inscio, aguntur. Bengel is followed by Chr. Schmid. Some- 
what different from this view is that of Calvin, which Jerome like- 
wise adopts, in his Com. in 165. 1. xviii. c. 66, v. 18 upon the verse; 
** Opera et cognitiones eorum venio ut congregem.”” ‘I'hey construe 
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ immediately with the preceding ἀπολογουμένων; which is very 
agreeable to the Hebrew mode of construction, and especially that of 
St. Paul; and taking ἐν in the sense of εἰς ἡμέξαν, they give to the 
whole the signification, ‘that the great end of this struggle of the 
conscience with the perverse bias of the will, is, that on the day of 
judgment man may be self-refuted and self-convicted.”? Calvin: Ra- 
“tiones autem istas accusandi et defendendi ad diem Domini confert, 
non quia sint tunc primum emersure, que assidue nunc vigent et 
officium suum exercent, sed quia sint tune quoque valitura, ne quis 
ut frivolas et evanidas contemnat. Qcumenius and Theophylact, 
and equally, as it seems, heodoret and Chrysostom, connect, in the 
same way, ἐν guéea with ἀπολογουμένων not taking it, however, in the 
sense of εἰς ἡμέξαν. According to their explanation, these decisions 
of the conscience are first to be delivered in the judgment. The view 
they take of the passage, however, is throughout obscure. ‘The 
choice seems to lie between the constructions of Bengel and of Calvin. 
That of the Grecian fathers may also be safely retained, with only 
the modification of taking ἐν ἡμέξᾳ as emphatic, so that the meaning 
would be, ‘their thoughts excuse or accuse them always, but chiefly 
on the day when,” &c. Precisely so Erasmus: Secundum hee igi- 
tur judicabit illos Deus olim, quum quod nunc occulte fit in precor- 
diorum latebris, tum propalam fiet sub oculis omnium. In verse 12 
and 13 the Apostle had proposed to speak of the judgment to come. 
But first, the thought suggests itself to his mind of that judgment 
which already goes on in the heart of man. From this connection 
it is easy to conceive how, in Paul’s lively imagination, the present 
and the future should mingle and be confounded together. What 
now takes place inwardly, will then be manifested openly. In fa- 
vour of this explanation, the sequel furnishes a proof in the contrast 
of the za xevxza with the public judgment. By construing verse 16 
with verse 12, the τὰ xevwca appears divested of any special reference 
whatever; according to the view we have now proposed, however, 
we may, and must refer it to those conflicts of the conscience with 
the ungodly bias of the mind, which presently, indeed, are hidden 
from the external eye, but which are one day to be subjected to a 
visible judgment. Of the manifestation of the hidden things of dark- 
ness, and the counsels of the heart at that great period, the Apostle 
also speaks, 1 Cor. iv. 5. 

xath τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μον. So does the Apostle call the collective 
doctrines committed to him to preach, Rom. i. 16, 2 Tim. ii. 8, 
comp. with 1 Cor. xv. 1. 

Διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xevorov. That Christ, in his state of exaltation, will 
one day be the judge of the human race, is elsewhere taught by St. 


‘ 


84 CHAPTER Ul. Vv. 17. 


Paul, Acts xvii. 31, as it also is by Peter, Acts x.42. We must not, 
however, in imitation of Pelagius and Grotius, lay, in the present 
instance, any particular stress upon that circumstance, as if, forsooth, 
Paul had expressly annexed κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μον, because the hu- 
man understanding cannot of itself discover by whom God will judge 
the world. By the addition of these words, he only means to certify, 
in a solemn manner, the great truth of a judgment to come. Itisa 
still greater mistake to construe χατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μον With διὰ Ἰησοῦ 
Χειστοῦ, according to my Gospel received from Jesus Christ. In 
concluding, we may state Semler’s arbitrary hypothesis, viz. that the 
ὅτε before χρινεῦ is a gloss, and that the words from ἐν ἡμέξῳ are to 
be taken ἀσυνδέτως, unconnectedly, and that expression translated 
publice. 


PARE LTA 


BY THIS RULE, THE JEW WHO, ENJOYING VARIOUS MEANS OF GRACE 
AND BETTER KNOWLEDGE, NEVERTHELESS TRANSGRESSES THE LAW, 
1S WORSE THAN THE HEATHEN, WHO, WITHOUT SUCH EXTERNAL AD- 
VANTAGES, IS TRUE TO THE LAW IN HIS HEART. Vv. 17—29. 


V. 17. Tuer Apostle, in this and the following verses, enumerates 
all the privileges and advantages, which the Jew, who had his re- 
ligion sincerely at heart, really possessed; describing them in the 
vain-glorious language of the Jew himself. 

Ei δὲ is, for preponderating reasons, both external and internal, to 
be received into the text as the truereading. ‘The substitution of ἔδε 
seems indeed to impart simplicity, for by reading εἰ δὲ we miss the 
conclusion which might be expected to follow. But, besides that the 
great majority of the codices are in favour of εἴ δὲν it is also probable 
that iS: was only adopted for the purpose of simplifying the con- 
nection. Moreover, it is not accordant with the style of our Apostle 
to begin a new train of thought with és. ‘The conclusion which εὐ 
δὲ seems to require, and which escaped in the warmth of discourse, 
is found substantially, although not in form, in the 21st verse. 

Ιουδαῖος, That the Apostle here plays, as is generally supposed, 
upon the etymology of the word mm 717, fo praise God, has little 
probability. Rather is the observation of Grotius correct: Nomen 
erat religionis eo tempore et significabat μονόθεον. The name Jew 
awakens the remembrance of all the great things which God had 
wrought for the Fathers, and which furnished the Israelite with 
grounds of boasting. How much he presumed upon this name, we 
may learn from Gal. ii. 15; Phil. ili. 5; Rev. ii. 9. Hence the 
Apostle employs the word ἐπονομάζειν, which has a loftier tone. 


CHAPTER Il. v. 17, 18. 85 


Plato, de Leg. L. i. p. 8. Bip. Ὦ ξένε “Adevace’ od yde σὲ ᾿Αττικὸν 
ἐθέλοιμ᾽ ἂν τἰξοσαγοξεύειν. Soxeis yae μον τῆς ϑεοῦ ἐπωνυμίας ἄξιος eivas 
μᾶλλον ἐπονομάζεσθαι. 

ἐπαναπαύῃ τῷ νόμῳ: This is the verb by which the LXX. render 
wi, Micah iii. 11. It is equivalent to πεποιθέναι. Comp. | Macc. 
viii. 12; Phil. iii. 4. Beza: Excitat Judeos legi quasi placide in- 
dormientes, ut apertum et proximum periculum cernant. 

νόμος is not here to be understood in the more comprehensive sense 
of the writings of the Old Testament, but restricted to the law of 
Moses, as is obvious from the sequel. 

χαυχᾶσαν ἐν Θεῷ. ‘The same expression occurs Rom. v.11. While 

the heathen felt themselves to be ἄθεου ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ; their deities having 
no vital influence upon life, the Jew stood in real and historical con- 
nection with his God, of whose deeds he could speak. Deut. iv. 7, 
ἐς For what nation is there so great, who hath God (or Gods) sv nigh 
unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon 
him for.” Ps. exlvii. 19 and 20, ** He showeth his word unto Jacob, 
his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so 
with any nation: and as for his judgments they have not known 
them. Praise ye the Lord.’”? Comp. 2 Sam. vil. 23. Oecum: ὡς 
μόνος ἀγαπηθεὶς Maga τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους. 

V.18. Other privileges of the Jew described in his own words, 
χαὶ γινώσχεις τὸ θέλημα SC. τοῦ Θεοῦ. So Baruch iv. 4. Μακάξιου éo- 
μὲν ᾿Ισξαὴν ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ τοὺ δεοῦ ἡμῖν γνωστὼ ἐστί. 

δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέξοντα. ‘The same expression is found in Phil. 1. 
10. Aoxcuwa2euv—comp. at i. 28—has a twofold signification, either 
to discriminate, prove, or to commend, favour; and in like manner, 
τὰ διαφέξοντά means things, either opposed or distinguished. Of the 
last of these meanings, we have an example in Andocydes, Or. iv. in 
Alcib. Δεινὸν μὲν οὖν tort καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγνοούντων τὰ δίχαια πάσχειν xa- 
λῶς, πολὺ δὲ χαλεπώτεξον ὅταν τις ἐπιστάμενος τὰ διαφέροντα παξαβαίνευν 
τολμᾷ" of the former, in Xenophon. Mem iv. 8,11. ἐπειδὴ πολλὰ μὲν 
χαλὰ χαὶ ὠφέλιμα διαφέφοντα δὲ ἀλλήλων ἐστὶ. Accordingly, we may 
either translate the passage, “and provest things that differ,’’ as 
Erasmus, Beza, Elsner, Clericus, and even Theodoret have done, 
who thus expounds τὰ Scapégovra ἀντὴ τοῦ ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις Sixacoovyny 
xat ἀδιχίαν᾽ OF Wwe may translate it ‘‘approvest the things that are 
more excellent.” Vulgate: Probas utiliora. So Chrysostom, cu- 
menius, Theophylact, and Luther. Looking only to this passage, 
we should prefer a third to either of these senses of the word. It 
sometimes signifies cause dissidii, controversie. Xenophon. Hist. 
Gree. vi. 8. 4. Sapedven μὲν δήπου ἐστὶ» μηδὲ εὖ μὴ woxen τὰ διαφέ- 
ξοντα ein πόλεμων ἀναιξεῖσθαι. Polybius: Hist. xxxi. 18,1, τὰ δια- 
φέροντα τῷ δασιλεῖ meds τοὺς Γαλάτας. ‘* The contentions of the king 
with the Galatians.’”? According to this meaning, the passage would 
be translated, “thou triest controversies.”’ ‘This, however, would 
not answer at Phil. i. 10, and as it is certain that the Apostle uses 
the expression in the same import in both passages, we decide in 


86 CHAPTER 11. v. 19, 20. 


favour of the second interpretation, which agrees best with the latter. 
Calvin says: Duplex est probatio, altera electionis, quum id quod 
bonum probavimus, amplectimur; altera judicii, qua discernimus 
quidem bonum a malo, sed conatu vel studio minime sectamur. Sic 
ergo erant eruditi in lege Judi, ut possent morum censuram exer- 
cere, sed de vita sua ad hane censuram exigenda parum erant soliciti. 

V. 19. Having in the 17th and 18th verses described the privileges 
of the Jews, confining his view to the fruits which that nation itself 
might have reaped from them, the Apostle now adverts to the lofty 
position which they assumed in relation to the heathen, proposing 
themselves, as indeed, when piously disposed, they were calculated 
to be their guides to salvation. 

ὁδηγὸν εἶναυ τυφλῶν. In like manner, did our Lord himself upbraid 
the Pharisees with being blind leaders of the blind, Matt.xv. 14. It 
is well known that they took great pains to gain proselytes, which 
endeavours, among the worst sort of the sect, (the ‘‘almud shows 
that there were good men among them, Bux. Lex. 'Talm.) proceeded 
partly from well meaning ignorance, and partly from vanity, Matt. 
xxiii. 15. 

φῶς τὼν ἐν σχότει. ‘Che Messias was to prove the light of the 
Gentiles, according to Is. xlix. 6, comp. Luke ii. 32. And as it was 
thought that at the period of his coming, his people were to partici- 
pate in his glory, and to go forth as missionaries among the heathen, 
Is. Ixvi. 19, every individual Jew, who was versed in the law, con- 
sidered himself as a light of the Gentiles. 

V. 20. “Agedves, like 1ND, Ps. xix. 7, is synonymous with νήπιος, 
which is used in contrast to σοφοὶ, Matt. xi. 25. Here the object of 
the Apostle’s thoughts was probably the Jewish proselytes, who were 
figuratively so called, (Selden de Jure nat. ii. 4.) Whence also, in 
the New ‘Testament, νεόφυτου and νηπύου are applied to young Chris- 
tians. It may be objected, that the Rabbins did not show such 
haughtiness towards their proselytes as this name would imply, but 
rather demeaned themselves kindly. With respect to their pride, 
however, see Andr. Schmid, De Symb. Apost. in ‘Talmude ruderibus, 
Helmst. s. 26, 27. 

ἔχοντα τὴν poepwow. ‘This word signifies the form or image of a 
thing. ‘This signification may be here retained, as contrasted with 
the inward substance, and then the word is to be translated the sem- 
blance. Phavor.: τὸ ἐπίπλαστον εἰχὼν καὶ σχῆμα ἀληθείας οὐκ ὃν δέ. 
In this bad sense it is used by the Apostle, 2 Tim. iii. 15; and in this 
sense it is here understood by Hammond, Lange, and others. Theo- 
phylact: "Ἔχεις τὴν μόφφωσιν, οὐκ ἐν ταῖς meakeou καὶ τοῖς κατορθώμασιν; 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, πεποιθὼς ἀυτῷ, ὡς μορφοῦντυ τὴν ἀξετήν. Gorse ἐάν Tes 
βασιλέως εἰκόνα ἔχων, αὐτὸς μὲν κατ᾽ αὐτήν μηδὲν ϑωγξαφοίη" οἱ δὲ μὴ πιο- 
τευθέντες αὐτὴν» καὶ χωρὶς τοὺ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀποβλέπειν, μετὰ ἀληθείας 
αὐτὴν μιμουντο. ἢ Μόξφωσις, however, may denote ἃ correct impression, 


* You have the form of knowledge and of the truth, not in your actions and 


CHAPTER Il. ν. 21, 22. : 87 


and then it stands in a good sense, like the verb in Gal. iv. 19, and 
is equivalent to ὑποτύπωσις. « In Latin, the word forma, forma officii, 
(Cic. Off. i. 29,) forma reipublice is used in the same way. ‘This 
sense must be here preferred, seeing that what is spoken of, is a 
privilege, of which the subject of the 'Theocracy boasts. Chrysos- 
tom: Διὸ xai ἐπιδαψιλεύεται τοὺς Soxovow αὐτῶν εἶναι ἐγκωμίους» εἰδὼς 
ὅτυ μείζονος χκατηγοξίας ὑποθέσις τὼ λεγόμενα. ἕ 

V. 21. Now follows what is properly the conclusion to εἰ δὲ in v. 
17. The Apostle resumes his consideration of the privileges of the 
Jew, and of the superiority of his position to that of the heathen, 
and, in a forcible antanaclasis, turns the eyes of his countrymen to 
the discrepancy of their life, which so many advantages, in point of 
knowledge, rendered still more appalling. ‘The interrogative form 
in which it is expressed, gives additional force to the rebuke. ‘Theft 
and adultery, against which the Apostle inveighs, need not be consi- 
dered, as Michaelis and others have imagined, the sins which were 
principally prevalent among the Jews. It is obvious from ἑεξοσυλεῖ ς» 
that he merely instances peculiarly heinous sins, of which among a 
nation so highly favoured by God, there ought not to have been a 
single example. It is natural to suppose that he chiefly referred to 
the teachers of the law in this passage, since, as we remarked, in the 
instance of proselytising, verse 20, what was the character of the 
depraved nation in general, belonged particularly to them. Hence 
the declarations of our Saviour with respect to the Scribes and Pha- 
risees, may be quoted as parallel passages, for instance, Matt. xxiii. 
14, where he reproves their avarice. Kzevoow here, in the import of 
the Hebrew 7p proclamare, mandatum edere, Jonah iii. 5. 

V. 22. The most celebrated Rabbins, such as R. Akiba, Meir, Ele- 
asar, and others, are accused in the Talmud of adultery. 

Λέγω in the sense to give a judicial decision. Matt. xv. 5, Mark 
vil. 11. So ΓΝ a commandment, is translated a decree. Esth. 
lil. 3. 

6 βδελυσσόμενος τὰ eidara* Eidwroy signifies an image, idol, and 
thence the heathen deities, which are also called βδελύγματα Ὁ ΧΡ. 
The Israelites, especially after the captivity, felt a real horror for 
these. When Pilate, for example, made the military standards, 
which were adorned with representations of the emperor, be brought 
to Jerusalem, with the Roman soldiers, the Jews, in vast multitudes, 
flew to meet him at Caesarea. During five days they were refused 
an audience; and when Pilate at last appeared, he ordered them, 
upon pain of death, to withdraw. ‘They, however, cast themselves 
upon the ground and exposed their necks, exclaiming that they would 


duties, but in the law, to which you trust for the formation of virtue; just as if 
one possessing the likeness of a king were not himself to use it as a copy to 
draw by, while others, who had nothing of the kind to look at, imitated it cor- 
rectly. 

* Paul adds to the catalogue of their apparent commendations, knowing 
that what he says is the ground of a heavier accusation. 


88 CHAPTER II. v. 22, 23. 


all to a man choose rather to die than that their law should be violated 
by the entrance of idols into the city. (Jos. Archeol. 1. xviii. ¢. 3, 
§ 1. De Bel. Jud. 1. ii. ὁ. 9, 5. 2 and 3. It had been well if such 
zeal had been combined with rightful dispositions! 

ἱεξοσυλεῖν admits of a twofold interpretation. It commonly signi- 
fies to plunder a temple, and hence the meaning may be, “ dost thou 
rob an idol’s temple?”’ This view is taken by Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, Koppe, and Clericus, who thus paraphrases the passage: ‘Tu 
qui te ab idolis abhorrere fingis, quasi rebus summopere pollutis, quas 
ne attingere quidem velles, tamen si detur occasio, ipsa eorum templa 
spoliare non vereris. Such conduct was in direct opposition to the 
law, which peremptorily forbade the appropriation of heathen pro- 
perty, Deut. vii. 25. (Michelis, Mos. Recht. Th. v. 5. 248.) It is 
also condemned in Josephus. (Archeol. |. iv. c. 8,§ 10.) Accord- 
ing to this sense of the word, the passage would require to be inter- 
preted as follows: ‘* Dost thou who hast such an abhorrence of all 
that belongs to idol worship, make property taken from heathen tem- 
ples thine own?”’ But it may be objected to this interpretation, both 
that history has not recorded any instance of the spoliation of hea- 
then temples by the Jews, and that it is a crime, for the commission 
of which the opportunities must obviously have been exceedingly 
rare. Accordingly some have proposed another interpretation of the 
word, viz. to take it as metaphorically applied to a withholding of the 
temple dues on the part of the laity, and the embezzlement of the 
temple revenues by the priests. So Pelagius, Grotius, and a host of 
others, who support their opinion by quoting the passage from Jos. 
Archeol. lviii. 6. 3, § 3, where it is related how the Jews appropriated 
to their own use the rich contributions made to the temple by the 
proselyte Fulvia. ‘They also appeal to the accusations brought 
against the Jews in Malachi, chap. i. 8, 12, 13, 14; chap. iii. 10. 
To refer the passage in this manner, however, to dishonest practices 
with respect to tithes, appears too restricted an application, and hence 
it is, perhaps, best to take ἑεξοσυλεῖς in a still more general sense: 
Art thou a violater of that which is holy? without determining what 
special kind of profanation the Apostle had in view, to whom the 
word was suggested by the feeling of the moment. Thus Bengel: 
Deo non das gloriam, que proprie Dei est. So also Chr. Schmidt 
and Schleusner.* 

V. 23. Ὃς ἐν νόμῳ χαυχᾶσαι" In Baruch iv. 3, the law is called ἡ 
δόξα τοῦ Ἴσξαηλ. Aud τῆς παφαβάσεως τοῦ νόμον τὸν Θεὸν ἀτιμάξεις" Chry- 
sostom remarks: They commita threefold sin; they dishonour God; 
they dishonour him by means of that whereby themselves were 
honoured; they dishonour that God who had honoured them. Who- 
ever boasts of any particular token of Divine grace, is under obliga+ 
tion to walk so much the more worthily and piously; for otherwise, 


* [The author has since declared his preference of the literal sense, as 
yielding a stronger antithesis.] 


CHAPTER II. V. 23, 24. 80 


God is dishonoured for having bestowed his favour upon an unde- 
serving object. Hence it is said, Is. lil. 5, Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23, 
That God is blasphemed, and his name profaned, by his people being 
led away captives. He was, indeed, compelled to send them into 
captivity, in consequence of their numerous transgressions; and 
hence these had the effect of spreading an evil report of God, who 
was called their God. In like manner, Christ commands us to let 
our light so shine before men, that our Father in heaven may be glo- 
rified, Matt. v. 16. 

V.24. We already remarked, at chap.i. v. 17, how fond the Jews 
in general, and Paul] among the rest, were of speaking in the language 
of the Old Testament. ‘This our Apostle especially practises, when 
he has any thing to say, which might seem severe or strange to the 
Jews. It is particularly exemplified in chap. xi., and is also the 
ease here. When such quotations are made, we may add, as a para- 
phrase, ‘It is not I only who say this, ye are already described in 
the Old Testament.”’ C&icumenius: ᾿Επειδὴ Baed einer, ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν 
ἀτιμάζεις, τὸν προφήτην παξάγεν μάρτυρα.“ Paul does not mention the 
text of scripture. He quotes from memory, and gives the sense 
rather than the words. ‘The texts, which were before his mind, and 
resemble this, are the following: Ezek. xxxvi. 23; 2Sam. xii. 14; 
Neh. ν. 9; and more especially Is. lii. 5. 

In the whole preceding context the Apostle had sufficiently shown 
how the preference enjoyed by Israel, is so far from being able of 
itself to secure them the favour of God, that on the contrary unless it 
be associated with a corresponding character, the Jew stands on pre- 
cisely the same level with the Gentile, nay that the latter takes a 
higher place, in proportion to the superior excellence of his character. 
This he had not as yet distinctly expressed. But he now does so, 
though still with great moderation, in order that the Judaizing zeal- 
ots might not have occasion to decry him as an eccentric despiser of 
the ancient Theocracy. Accordingly he leaves the honour of being 
God’s covenant people, and guardians of the Divine revelations in 
unimpaired respect, and instead of putting the Gentiles on the same 
footing with the Jews, by declaring that honour to be a nonentity, 
and that all depends upon holiness of mind, he says, I readily acknow- 
ledge it as a high distinction to be the covenant people of the Lord; it 
was conferred by God himself, and upon persons who, he wished, 
might fully appreciate, and live in conformity to it. But, seeing that 
itis altogether misconceived by them, the Gentile, who labours to 
observe the moral law, enters into the enjoyment of the distinction in 
question, and the Jew, who lives unconcerned about obeying the 
moral law, is regarded as destitute of any interest in it. Cireumci- 
sion being the badge of one who belonged to the covenant people, 
Paul uniformly uses the sign for the thing itself. περυτομὴ is the 


ἡ Having made the heavy charge, thou dishonourest God, he brings forward 
the prophet to attest it. 


12 


90 CHAPTER II. v. 26, 27. 


quality of a covenant people; axeobvoria the state of exclusion from 
a near connection with God. ‘There is a passage entirely parallel 
to this both in the sense and the metonymical character of the lan- 
guage, (although indelicately expressed,) Schemoth rabba, sect. 19. 
fol. 118. (In Schottgen, ἃ h.1.) dixit R. Berachias: Ne heretici et 
apostate et impii ex Israelitis dicant: Quandoquidem cirecumcisi 
sumus, in infernum non descendimus, quid agit Deus 5. B.? ΜΈ 
angelum et preputia eorum attrahit, ut ipsi preeputiati in infernum 
descendant. 

V.26. The first ἀχξοβυστια, as is manifest from the αὐτοῦ, in place 
of αὐτῆς» subjoined to the second, is here by metonyme—the abstract 
for the concrete—used for ἀκφοβύστοι, which is equivalent to οἱ décor 
ἐν τῷ χόσμω. Διχαιώματα pn are the single precepts. Φυλάσσειν 
after the Hebrew nw tokeep. The εἰς before πεφυτομὴ is the Hebrew 
5, which is always placed before what is derived from something 
else. 

V. 27. xa: may be either regarded as connexive, uniting the clauses 
before and after it, so as to comprehend the latter in the interrogation, 
which the Vulgate, Beza, Limboreh, and Calvin have done, and 
which yields a construction more accordant with pure Greek, or it 
may be considered as marking progression; in which case the pre- 
sent verse is separated, as being an inference, from the preceding; 
and this, again, would be more agreeable to the Hellenistic. Thus, 
Luther, and Erasmus in his paraphrase: Imo non solum equabitur 
tibi in hac parte, quin imo preeferetur. 

xewet. The fulfilment of the law by the heathen will serve as a 
living witness against the Jews. Grotius: comparatione sui tuam 
culpam evincet. See a similar use of the word, Matt. xii. 42. Heb. 
mids 

Ἢ ἐκ φύσεως axeoBvoria. There is no doubt that these words are to 
be taken together. The Apostle had before spoken metaphorically of 
the uncircumcised, among whom he numbered the Jews. In order 
to apprise the reader that he now relinquishes the metaphor, he here 
annexes ἐκ φύσεως. So Galat. ii. 15, ἡμεῖς φύσεν Ἰουδαῖοι. There is 
not, therefore, in the sentence the smallest occasion for the violent 
construction adopted by Koppe, who construes ἐκ φύσεως with νόμον 
τελοῦσα.- ; 

Τὸν δα γεάμματος καὶ περιτομῆς nagaBarny νόμου. Γράμμα Signifies 
per met. the written law, as 2 Cor. 111. 6. In specifying the law and 
circumcision, Paul embraced all those privileges of Israel, which his 
present purpose required him to take into account. ‘The motives by 
which the Jew might be influenced to comply with the law, were, on 
the one hand, the thought of having obtained merey as a subject of 
the covenant; and, on the other, the distinct knowledge which had 
been imparted to him of the Divine will. Beza gives διὰ in its 
proper sense, as denoting instrumentality, as if the law and the 
covenant, with which he was favoured, had operated as occasions of 
the moral deterioration of the Jew. It is subsequently, however, 


CHAPTER II. V. 28, 29. 91 


that St. Paul takes up this thought. Here διὰ designates the state or 
circumstances under which any thing takes place. In this sense it 
is frequently used in the New ‘Testament, particularly by Paul, Acts 
xii. 9, 1 John v. 6, Rom. iv. 11; xiv. 10, 2Cor. ii. 4, 2 Cor. v. 10, 
Phil. i. 20. In short, διὰ embraces, like the Latin per, and the Eng- 
lish through, the idea of causality and place. Now, according as 
the first or the second, but especially the second, of these ideas pre- 
vails, it may also signify dur¢ng, which likewise implies under the 
circumstances. ‘This sense of διὰ occurs also in classical Greek; 
partly in phrases in which certain auxiliary verbs are coupled with 
substantives, and supply the place of the proper verbs, such as διὰ 
θαύματος ἔχειν, διὰ σπουδῆς ἄγειν, διὰ φόβου yiwecbar, διὰ μνήμης φέξευν» 
instead of θαυμάζεσθαι, σπουδάζειν, &c., partly in other combinations, 
as διὰ χευρὼν ἔχειν, διὰ χαξφίτων ducrecv and partly in fine, where it is 
used for the formation of adverbs, as διὰ ταχέων; δὲ ἀπεχθείας, διὰ Bea- 
χυτάτων. Ast. in Plat. Remp. p. 429. 

V. 28. Here the Apostle closes the proof of the guiltiness of Is- 
rael, and entirely overthrows external reliance upon the Theocracy, 
as a magical means of obtaining salvation, Chrysostom makes the 
just observation, that even in this place he does not deny that God 
had connected the tokens of his grace with the Jewish people in par- 
ticular. Only we must rightly understand whom God means under 
that Israel to whom he has designed the accomplishment of his 
promises, even the converted part of the covenant people, like the 
inward church of the believers in the external Theocracy. ΤῸ that 
inward community, a large portion of the Jewish nation manifestly 
did not belong; and hence, it follows, that they stood equally with 
the Gentiles in want of a δικαιοσύνην available with God. Ov yae ὁ ἐν 
τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖος ἐστι. Grotius, in the most violent manner, couples 
these words with δὺ ὁ ἔπαινος in the 29th verse; ‘* Not he who is a 
Jew outwardly has the praise.’’ It is obvious that "Iovdacos is to be 
supplied after 6 ἐν τῷ gaveeq, and meevroun after ἡ tv τῷ Φανεξῷ. Storr 
quite unnaturally says, that ἐστὺ stands for ἐστί τιν valet aliquid. Ἔν 
oaext 15 Epexegesis to ἐν τῷ φανεξῷ. 

V. 29. Circumcision was a symbol of purity of heart, and hence 
the Hebrews, substituting the sign signified for the thing, spoke of 
a circumcision of the heart. Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6, Jer. iv. 4. In 
the New Testament it is called πεφιτομὴ ἀχευξοποίητος, Col. ii. 26, 
Phil. iii. 3. 

ἐν πνεύματι ov yedumars. Beza and Heumann consider ἐν πνεύματι 
as an epexegesis to πεξιτομὴ καρδίας» circumcision that takes place 
in the heart and in the spirit. In this manner, however, the con- 
trast with yeduua is lost. Accordingly, the great majority of ex- 
positors, G2cumenius, Grotius, and others, apply πνεῦμα to the Di- 
vine Spirit as the producing cause, give to ἐν the Hebrew sense of 
through, and making γράμμα antithetical to πνεῦμα, and taking it in 
the acceptation, the precept of the law, thus translates the passage, 
“the circumcision which is operated by the Holy Spirit, and not by 


92 CHAPTER 11. v. 29. 


the mere commandment of the law.”’ In this case, it is the Apostle’s 
object to show, that in the old Testament economy there reigned an 
imperative law; whereas in the New there reigns an inwardly 
quickening spirit. ‘This is a contrast which he is fond of drawing. 
ἐν πνεύματι and ὃν γράμματι may also, however, be taken adverbially, 
according to the Hebrew manner of forming adverbs by prefixing 3, 
and would then signify spiritually and literally. So Augustine, 
Clericus and others; and so also does Beza explain ἐν yedupare, but 
in such a manner as to lose, at least in form, the contrast with ἐν 
πνεύματι. ‘The Rabbins furnish numerous parallel passages. ‘The 
following is from the Talmud, Tract. Nidda f. xx. 2. ‘The Jew 
sits in the interior of the heart.”” There is a striking one from R. 
Lipman in Nizzachon, num. xxi. p. 19, which is thus translated: 
“Faith depends not upon circumcision, but rather upon the heart. 
Circumcision will not make an unbeliever a Jew.” 

“Ov refers both to the Jew inwardly and to the circumcision of the 
heart, as antecedents, and hence is to be regarded as neuter. It is 
altogether a Hebraic construction, and requires to be thus resolved, 
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐπαινεῖται οὐ μόνον mag’ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ χαὶ παξὼ τοῦ Θεοῦ- 
For the judicial sense of the word ἔπαινος; comp. 1 Pet, ii. 14, Rom. 
xill. 3. 


CHAPTER THIRD. 


ARGUMENT. 


Tue Apostle replies to those who, in spite of his guarded expressions in the 
previous chapter, might still charge him with detracting from the respect 
due to the Old Testament Theocracy. He shows, on the contrary, that he 
leaves it in full possession of its honour. At the same time, however, he 
must testify, that if questioned as to the relative situation of Jew and Gentile 
with respect to guilt in the sight of God, and need of salvation, he cannot 
do otherwise than place them both upon the same level, as being alike des- 
titute of that δικαιοσύνη, which God may rightfully require from man. But 
seeing, as it appears from this, that neither Gentile nor yet Jew, can estab- 
lish for himself such a δικαιοσύνη by a faultless obedience to the Divine Law, 
so God now reveals an entirely new way of acquiring it in that Gospel, 
which Paul, according to chap. i. 16, glories to promulgate. 'To participate 
in the δικαιοσύνη according to this new mode, a man must embrace the 
salvation which has been procured by Christ. In that way, heathens and 
Jews, without distinction, attain to justification, and all occasion of exalting 
self is cut off. 


DIVISION. 


1, Proof that Paul by no means lowers the dignity of the Old Testament 
Theocracy. V. 1—8. 


2. Explanation how, notwithstanding, in as far as regards guilt through sin, 


and need of salvation, there is no difference whatever between him that 

is a Jew, and him that is not. V. 9—20. 

3. Announcement of the new method by which God justifies all, and which 

he has devised in consequence of their inability to acquire justification 

for themselves, by a perfect fulfilment of the law. V.21—26. 

4, Epiphonema: in which it is shown, how, by this scheme of justification, 
all opportunity of aggrandizing self is done away, and Heathen and Jew 

obtain mercy on the same terms. V.27—31. 


PART, 


PROOF THAT PAUL BY NO MEANS LOWERS THE HONOUR OF THE OLD 
TESTAMENT THEOCRACY. v. 1—8. 


V. 1. Tue Apostle had terminated the former chapter with the 


assertion, that the privileges conferred upon Israel as a covenant 
people, could not in the least degree free them from the guilt of sin, 
or affect their need of salvation. He now brings forward as a speaker 
a character whom he disliked, viz. a bigoted Jew with his orthodox 


94 CHAPTER III. V. 2. 


objection. Οὖν if so be as was said, verse 28 and 29, of chap. il. 
To neevsoov' the Vulgate, amplius; better, prerogativa. Diod. Sic. 
ed. Bip. Il. p. 278, διὰ τὴν περιτότητα μνημονεύεσθαι. ‘The second 
question is nothing but a more specific definition of the first, cireum- 
cision being the badge of the subjects of the Theocracy. 

V. 2. The members of the old covenant had advantages of a two- 
fold description over the heathen world. In the first place, anterior 
to the advent of Him, who was the object and end of the whole Old 
Testament economy, it was a noble privilege to stand in a closer 
connection with God, and enjoy more peculiarly his guidance than 
the heathen. ‘The advantages which they enjoyed also at the open- 
ing of the new kingdom of God, were important. ‘They possessed 
revelations concerning it; among them it appeared; they were the 
first to whom it was proclaimed, and they were thus far more fa- 
vourably situated for entering into it. As the great object of the 
Apostle was to lead the Jews to the acknowledgment of the spiritual 
necessities under which they laboured after Christ’s advent, he passes 
over the former class of privileges, and of the second, instances in 
this verse, only the one which we first mentioned. It is clear, how- 
ever, from what has already been said, that all that these privileges 
could effect, was merely to smooth the way to the great end, in doing 
which they proportionably increased the culpability of those who 
failed toreach it. The tokens of the divine favour exhibit, in stronger 
contrast, the faithfulness of the Jews. Chrysostom: εὖδες οὐδαμοῦ τὰ 
κατορθώματα αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ θεοὺ τὰς εὑεφγεσίας ἀπαξιθμοῦντα.ἢ 

κατὰ πάντα πρόπον. St. Paul probably used these words without 
attaching to them any definite idea, but there is nothing to hinder us 
from referring them to the two descriptions of privileges enjoyed by 
Israel, those anterior to the period of the Messiah, and those con- 
temporaneous with his advent. 

Πεῶτον μὲν yae. There is no secondly to correspond with this: 
Grotius, Hammond, and others, indeed travel so far as chap. ix. 4, 
for what is wanting in the immediate context. But this is highly 
forced. Some, accordingly, have taken it up as an adjective, in the 
sense the most important. Beza: Primarium illud est, quod. The 
μὲν, however, points, not necessarily indeed, but still with probability, 
to a following δέ. Moreover, it is more in accordance with the fervour 
of Paul’s mind to suppose, either that he had forgotton what ought 
to have followed, or that he deemed what he had already said in the 
first place, to be sufficient for his purpose. Bucer, Calvin: Etsi 
unum istud esset, satis valere debet ad eorum dignitatem. Origen 
violently construes ὅτου and πρῶτων together; ‘‘ unto them were first 
committed.” 

ἐπυστεύθησαν. ‘The subject is not τὰ λόγια, So as to require the’ 
supplement of illis, as the Vulgate and the Syrian have supposed. 


* Do you observe how he still enumerates, not their righteous deeds, but 
the benefits conferred upon them by God? 


CHAPTER III. v. 2, 3. 95 


According to an Attic form of construction, instead of being put in 
the dative, the person is made nominative to the passive verb, in 
which it is here included, and to which it forms the subject. τὰ ad- 
για is accusative, and the proper translation is, they were entrusted 
with the oracles. We have other examples in 1 Cor. ix. 17, Gal. 
ii. 7, and also Philo in Flacc. p. 987. Αὐγυπτον ἐπὶ ἐξαετίαν ἐπυτρά- 
mevs. Lucian, Nigrin, c. 34, οἱ EMLTETCUMMEVOL τὰς πόλεις. 

Λόγια τοῦ @zov, according to the common use of the language, of 
which there are instances in Philo, may signify, generally, the Di- 
vine precepts, but in particular, the ten commandments 011277, as in 
Acts vil. 38. But as Paul had showed above, that the possession of 
the νόμος could do little for the Jews, we must here adopt some other 
signification. Δόγιον means primarily a Divine declaration, and 
hence may be applied particularly to promises and prophecies, like 
xzenouo. Profane writers employ it as synonymous with μαντεύματα. 
The LXX. translate jWN λόγιον xevoews, and Josephus λόγιον. Philo, 
Quis rer. div. ἢ, p. 482 dxeorénevroy λογίου τοὺ χεησθέντος αὐτοῦ τὼ 
υἱεῖ. Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, and others, take it here in the sense of 
ἐπαγγέλια. Ambrosius, Gicumenius, Beza, and Beausobre in that of 
προστάγματα, in which case the passage would resemble Ps. exlvii. 
19, 20. It was a high distinction of the Jews, as members of the 
theocracy, that they were honoured with praintimations of the future 
plan of salvation. 

V. 3. The Apostle himself starts an objection, which might pos- 
sibly be raised against the privilege of the Israelites which he had 
specified. It might be said, of what avail is it, that the Jews, for so 
many hundred years before his advent, were favoured with prophe- 
cies and promises respecting the Messiah. Now that he is come, a 
vast majority of them do not believe, and these, therefore, cannot be 
looked upon as having been a very extraordinary benefit. To this 
Paul replies: The advantages which a Jew, believing in Jesus, de- 
rives from these ancient promises, remain precisely the same, not- 
withstanding the multitudes of his countrymen who remain uncon- 
vinced; for God unalterably fulfils his promise to all who are willing 
to have them fulfilled; and thus the Jew, who becomes a believer, 
has in so far the advantage over the Gentile, that these promises 
guide him more easily to the faith, and strengthen his convictions 
when he has believed; 2 Tim. ii. 13, presents a passage which is 
parallel in sense. Theophylact: Tatra δὲ λέγων, δοκεῖ μὲν αὐτῶν 
ὑπεξαπολογείσθαυ" ἔγχλημα δὲ ὅμως πάλιν ἄλλο εἰς μέσον αὐτοὺς προσφέρειν 
χαὶὺ δείχνυσιν αὐτοὺς ἀπιστήσαντας τοῖς θείοις AOYoLS, δὲ ὧν ἐτιμήθησαν. 

ἠπίστησαν. ‘Those who make λόγια the law, require to take this 
word as synonymous with ἠπείθησαν, which is, indeed, the reading 
of one codex. It is questionable, however, if the rules of the lan- 


* While in saying this, he seems to apologize for them, he in fact brings 
against them a fresh accusation, showing that they had disbelieved the divine 
oracles which had been granted to them as a high distinction. 


96 CHAPTER 111 V. 4. 


guage warrant this interpretation. Hesychius, by whom it is pro- 
posed, may have adopted it for the same reason as the codex we 
have alluded to did the various readings, viz. for the explanation of 
the passage. In some codices of the LXX. it is used as the transla- 
tion of 113 in Ps. xxv. 8. But there, for sound critical reasons, dyo- 
μοῦντες is to be received. Koppe thinks, that the Apostle was led to 
choose the verb ἀπιστεὼν by the noun πίστις following; but it is far 
more natural to suppose, that he selected the πίστις that follows in 
consequence of ἀπιστεῦν going before. reves per charientismum for 
οὗ πλευστου. 

Πίστις credibility, trust-worthiness. In ἃ like sense it seems also 
to be used in many passages of the New Testament. Gal. v. 22. 
Comp. Ecclus. xl. 12. Profane authors have πόλεμος ἄπιστος, bel- 
lum contra datam fidem. Melancthon: Hic locus continet egregiam 
consolationem, ac monet ne propter ingentem multitudinem impiorum, 
suspicemur promissionem gratie Ecclesie factam irritam esse, sed 
sciamus vere eam exhiberi etiamsi paucissimi sint. 

V. 4. Paul replies in the negative to the question, which he had 
himself started as an objection. In order to show how utterly ground- 
Jess that objection is, he utters in the warmth of discourse, the wish 
that all mankind might prove covenant-breakers, as this would only 
tend to glorify God the more, by being the occasion of manifesting 
how great is his fidelity. Theophylact: Θῶμεν ὅτι πάντες ἠπίστησαν" 
καὶ τί τοῦτο; χᾷάντευθεν δικαιοῦταυ ὃ θεός. 

Μὴ γένοιτο is the strongest form of negation. ‘The corresponding 
phrase in Hebrew is ΓΙ} ΤΊ, profana res mihi sit. The Rabbins use 
wn; Be quiet and dismiss such thoughts. Profane authors have 
εἰς χεφαλήν σοι. Kuster ad Aristoph. Plut. v. 525. From having 
used this γένοιτο, the Apostle is led for the sake of the paronomasia 
to employ γινέσθω in the next clause. ‘That word is capable of being 
interpreted two ways, according to the punctuation. Herzog, who 
is followed by Koppe, places a colon after δὲ, and takes up the sequel 
as the quotation of a text of Scripture, Ps. exvi. 11; γινέσθω would 
then signify, let that be fulfilled, or as Koppe renders it, “" so let it 
rather be.’” According to the latter translation, we miss ὧδε in the 
text. According to the first, there arises the scruple whether γινέσθαυ; 
without any further supplement, can mean fo be fulfilled, which does 
not follow, as Wolf justly observes, from 1 Cor. xv. 54, seeing that 
there it is joined to ὁ λόγος ὃ yeyeaupévos. Accordingly it is more 
natural, not to place a point after γινέσθω δὲν but to construe it imme- 
diately with ὁ Θεός. Its meaning would then be, let God become, 
which amounts to as much as let God appear. ‘Theophylact, φανε- 
ξοῦσθαι. ᾿Αληθὴς according to the Hebraistic use, refers to practical 
veracity, trust-worthy. 

Wevorns denotes practical falsehood, and is to be translated faith- 


* Grant that all have disbelieved. What of that?’ Even by their disbelief 
God is justified. 


CHAPTER Ill. V. 4, 5. 97 


less. Hesychius, ψευδος, ἀπάτη, πλάνη. The Old Testament fre- 
quently speaks with emphasis of the uncertainty of the word of man, 
and of the imprudence of relying upon it, as Jer. xvii. 5. The sen- 
timent of the Apostle would have been more appropriately expressed, 
if the second had here preceded the first clause. A similar declara- 
tion is made with respect to men, in Ps. exvi. 11. As that, how- 
ever, wants the Θεὸς ἀληθὴς. it is not probable that it is what the 
Apostle cites. ‘The citation which immediately follows, contains an 
analogous thought. Itis quoted from Ps. li. precisely according to 
the LXX. David acknowledges that he had sinned against Ged, and 
does so, in order that God, in inflicting punishment upon him, might 
be seen to be just. So here the acknowledgment, that all men are 
faithless, serves to show forth the unspeakably great covenant-fidelity 
of God. διχοιωθῇς PI¥N ΤΡ to be right, to be justified. Adyos an 
action or law-suit, Acts xix. 38. Ncxayv, is in like manner, and even 
by profane authors, used in the sense fo win a law-plea. ‘The He- 
brew text employs to express the same thing ΤΊΣΙ fo be pure. 

Ἔν τῷ κχείνεσθαί σε may be viewed either as passive, or as mid- 
dle. Several have even taken it in an active acceptation. ‘To sup- 
pose it passive in the Hebrew text, would not yield a suitable meaning, 
although it would be grammatically correct. This, however, is no 
sufficient proof of the passive acceptation not having been adopted 
by the Septuagint, and afterwards by Paul, which would here make 
the meaning, when thou art judged, although that meaning, it must 
be coffessed, does not seem perfectly to accord with the Apostle’s 
scope. The parallel passages from the LXX. appear also in favour 
of it, and for these reasons, it has been espoused by Lambertus Bos, 
whom the majority of expositors follow. On the other hand, the 
active signification is what would best coincide both with the Hebrew 
text, and the Apostle’s design in the passage before us; as there are 
no examples, however, to support it, and as χρίνεσθαι, when not 
passive, is always middle, we here take it in the latter mood. Although 
the Hebrew will not bear this, bw being in Kal. and requiring to be 
understood actively, the LX X. might nevertheless, have adopted the 
middle, frém its analogy to the active. Comp. Is. xliii. 26, in the 
Septuagint. For these reasons we thus translate, ‘ that thou in con- 
troversy with men mayest appear just, and maintain the superiority, 
when thou judgest.”’ 

V.5. The answer now given to the objection which Paul had 
himself brought forward, viz. as to whether the unbelief of the Jews 
with respect to Christ, did not deprive the dispensation of prophecy 
of its whole value, might give occasion to a still more dangerous 
assertion. When he said, that the falsehood of man was the 
means of shedding a brighter light upon the covenant-fidelity of God, 
the insolent sophistry of the Jews might conclude from that proposi- 
tion, that the sinner was no longer amenable to punishment, as thus 
contributing to the glory of the Divine Being. ‘The ἡμὼν has no spe- 

13 


98 CHAPTER 111. V. 5. 


cial reference either to Jews or Christians, but applies generally to 
all men committing sin. ᾿Αδικία and δικαιοσύνη are the generic ideas 
for the ἀπιστία and πίστις Of the 3d verse. Συνιστάναι to commend, 
manifest. Philo: (De migr. Abrah. p. 394,) τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ διασυ- 
νίστησιν-τττὲχ tov τὸν χόσμον Sedyuuroveyyxévar. ‘The τί ἐξοῦμεν iS ἃ 
figure of Rabbinical Dialectics, 1229 XIX “ND, quid est dicendum? 
which in the Talmud, always appears in the abbreviated form of 98. 
In like manner, it is peculiar to the Rabbins, to repel the opponent 
by a negative, cast into the form of an interrogation. 

In the μὴ ἀδικος ὃ Θεὸς the Apostle gives the false reply to the above 
sophistical question. Were this reply true, it would justify the per- 
nicious sophistry which dictates the question, and might certainly be 
deduced from the former impious inference. ‘The μὴ which, as is 
well known, like the Latin num, introduces a question to which 
we expect a negative answer, may accordingly be here paraphrased, 
‘* Shall we then reply to that objection by conceding that God, &c.”’ 

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. There are three several acceptations in which 
this formulary may be taken. I speak agreeably to the nature 
or understanding of man, or I speak as men are wont to do, or, 
finally, in a still more restricted sense, I speak as those men do. 
These various meanings may frequently indeed coincide; it is never- 
theless possible to point out one of them as the most common, and 
that isthe second. This is the meaning of the phrase in Gal. ili. 15, 
and Rom. vi. 19, where we read xara ἀνθρώπινον λέγω. In support 
of it, it is usual, since the time of Grotius, to instance Eccles. ii. 18, 
but there 31» has a somewhat different signification. On the 
other hand, it is of frequent occurrence among the T'almudists, who, 
when they borrow any illustration from common life, are wont to 
say ‘WIS NNT 193 as men usually speak. The same mode of speech 
is prevalent among classical authors; and takes its rise from the gene- 
ral meaning of ἀνθρώπινον, that which is customary among men. 
Comp. Aristoph. νεβρῷ, v. 1174. Μὴ μοίγε μύθους ἀλλὰ τῶν avOga- 
πίνων οἵους λέγομεν μάλιστα τούτους κατ᾽ οἰκίαν. Rane, v. 1174, ἣν 
οὖν σὺ λέγῃς AvxaBytovs, καὶ ἸΤαφνασσὼν ἡμῖν μεγέθη» τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὰ χεηστὰ 
διδάσκειν ὃν χρὴ φράζειν ἀνθξωπείως" Strato, the comic author, has 
GrOeanivws λαλεῖν. It is likewise equally common in Latin. Petro- 
nius: (Satyricon, 6. 90.) Minus quam duabus horis mecum moraris, 
et sepius poeticé quam humané locutus es. Furthermore, Symma- 
chus: (Epp. ed. Leccius, p. 47, ep. 32.) Persuasisti mihi epistole 
mez concinnationem inhumanam non esse. So likewise Cicero (De 
divinatione, |. xi. 6. 64) uses the expression, hominum more dicere, in 
the sense “to speak in ordinary language.”’ Such is the meaning 
given to xara dvOgwzov λέγω in the present passage by Theodoret. 
See his Expos. of Gal. iii. 15. More ancient commentators deviate ' 
from him, as, for example, Suicer, in this very place, opposes to him 
Theophylact. Already Chrysostom expounded the xara dv0ganov by 
κατ᾿ ἀνθρώπινον διαλεχθείη λογισμὸν, Which Theophylact and Gicume- 


CHAPTER Iti. v. 6. 99 


nius more minutely explain. ‘The former says, ἐγὼ μὲν τοιαῦτα ἀπο- 
Aoyoumat ὑπὲφ Tov Θεοὺ;, xata ἀνθρώπινον Aoyromor, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν, ὡς ἔνι 
δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λογίζεσθαν δικαιολογίας. ᾿Επεὶ ὅσω mover 6 Sedsy ἔχεο 
τινὰς ἀποῤῥήτους λόγοῦς. ὃ By this exposition, a false reference is given 
to the formula by its being brought into connection with the follow- 
ing answer of Paul, ἐπεὺ πῶς xeiver, &c. ‘The Ambrosiaster interprets: 
Absit ne deus iniquus dicatur, quia hoc homini competit, quem con- 
stat errare. Modern commentators differ greatly from each other. 
Many unnaturally render it, as the opponents say. 

V. 6. The Apostle repels the insolent sophistical objection under 
review, by retreating to a truth which no Jew denied. If, as he 
argues, from the circumstance of sin’s bringing the Divine perfections 
into clearer light, it could be inferred, that God ought not to punish 
the sinner, it would follow that he could not be the judge of the 
world, for it universally happens, that the sins of men become sub- 
servient to the manifestation of God’s glory, without their native 
turpitude being thereby done away. We, accordingly, expound as 
follows: ‘* Were such the case, how would he then judge the world. 
A future judgment must also be given πρ.᾿ So Grotius, Beza, and 
others. With a slight variation of idea, the majority of interpreters 
render it, ‘‘ were such the case, how would he hold, 7. 6. would he 
have revealed that he will hold, a judgment?”’ ‘This is in so far 
expressed with precision by 'Theophylact: Accs ce xonager, δὲ αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο οὐκ εἰ αὐτῷ τῆς νύκης aiTLOS* ἀδικία yae τὸ τὸν αἴτιον τῆς vixNS 
παξφὰ τοῦ νικῶντος κολάζεσθαι. Even so Origen, 'Theodoret, Gicume- 
nius, and Bucer, who says, that ‘to judge, involves the idea of 
avenging sin.”” ‘There is still another shade of the idea, suggested 
by Clarius, but which is far-fetched. He lays the emphasis upon 
Θεὸς, and determines the meaning to be “ ought not we rather to judge 
the world, who would thus bring good out of our sins?”’ An inter- 
pretation, deviating far from the common one, has been proposed by 
Limborch and Koppe, who understand χόσμος to mean the heathen 
world. ‘This would yield the following sense. ‘If, as by your fond 
sophistry ye conclude, the sins of Jews make God unrighteous in 
punishing you, you must also grant that the sins of the heathen 
equally conduce to the Divine glory, and hence that it is equally 
wrong for him to punish them; an inference which, as Jews, you 
will not admit.’ ‘To this interpretation no objection, on the score 
of language, can be offered. ‘The Jews were fond of distinguishing 
Danw: and odiyn nix, those who belonged to the external theocracy, 
and those who were excluded from it. ‘The same distinction was 
transferred to the spiritual theocracy, and κόσμος came to denote all 


* This I state in apology for God, according to human judgment, that is, 
as an umpire decides upon the defences of the parties. There are always 
some secret reasons in God’s doings. 

} The mere fact of his punishing you does not constitute you the cause of 
his overcoming. ‘To inflict a penalty on the author of his victory would be 
injustice in the conqueror. 


106 CHAPTER Ill. v. 6, 7. 


who have no part in the kingdom of Christ. Under these the 
heathen are comprehended. Besides, it is no less true, that the 
Jews believed that the great judgment day, which they looked for at 
the advent of the Messiah, was especially designed as a day of ven- 
geance against the enemies of the theocracy, viz. the heathen. See 
Lightfoot ad Joh. iii. 17. In spite of all this, however, it is more 
correct to suppose, that the Apostle here refers to that universal 
judgment to which God will bring the whole world. For, in the 
first place, as Paul did not believe on a judgment of the heathen, 
according to the Jewish views, he could not properly appeal to that, 
as a perfectly certain event, which the use of the future tense xeuvet 
shows that he does. In his conception, the judgment of the heathen 
must have been comprised in God’s general office of 87 9. DEW, 
as he is always called in the Old Testament. Again, it is obvious, 
from the 8th verse, that under χόσμος the Apostle had in view sinners 
of every kind, and not exclusively the heathen. Moreover, he who 
uniformly offered such decided opposition to the delusion of the 
Jews, who flattered themselves, that, by virtue of mere bodily ex- 
traction, they belonged to the kingdom of God, insisting with them 
that their character rather showed them to be of the world, would 
scarcely have made so erroneous an idea of the foundation of an argu- 
ment. 

᾿Επεὶ alioquin, see Ast. ad Plat. Remp. p. 633, Alberti Obs. p. 
341. χρίνευν, in our acceptation of the passage, means not fo con- 
demn but to judge. 

V.7. This verse justifies the statement contained in verse 6th, 
viz. that by the sophistical perversion of the truth in question, the 
idea of a judgment is entirely done away. Instead, however, of in- 
troducing the sinner, supposed to be unjustly subjected to judgment, 
and making him speak in the third person, the Apostle, by an ordi- 
nary figure of rhetoric, takes the part upon himself. ‘The connection 
of this verse with the preceding is hence as follows: ‘It cannot be 
allowed that God is unrighteous when he punishes the sinner, for 
otherwise we must deny that he will one day judge the world, inas- 
much as I, a sinful person, cannot lawfully be judged as such, seeing 
that my sin conduces to the divine glory.” ‘The exposition of the 
verse shows at once the incorrectness of Limborch and Koppe’s in- 
terpretation of χόσμος;, it being obvious, that sinners of every kind are 
here spoken of. 

ψεῦσμα for ψεῦδος» is to be taken as ἀδικία in verse 5th, after the 
Hebrew 7pw, which signifies worthlessness; ἀλήθεια is practical truth, 
equivalent to δικαιοσύνη holiness, which Old Testament use of speech, 
the Rabbins still preserve, giving Dwp, the meaning of truth and 
holiness. ‘That, in translating this passage, the generic term ought 
to be used to express the idea, is obvious from the fact that the Apos- 
tle has been led by the mention of the judgment of the world, to make 
a transition from the special relationship of the Israelite to God, 
which consisted in covenant-faithlessness on the one side, and cove- 


CHAPTER III. ν. 8. 101 


nant truth on the other, to the contemplation of that general relation 
in which man, as a sinner, stands to the Divine Being. It is entirely 
forced when Koppe interprets ψεῦσμα idolatry, and ἁμαρτωλὸς, an 
idolater, in order to make the passage apply to the heathen. 

ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, is in place οἵ πεξφισσοτέφως ἐδόξασεν 
αὐτὸν, after the Hebrew 12102 VMN. Κἀγὼ. The xa is here not 
altogether devoid of meaning, in so far as it co-ordinates the fate of 
man with the advantage which God gains in the case: it may be ex- 
pressed by besides, moreover. 

V. 8. continues the confirmatory elucidation of what was said in 
verse 6th. Supposing the sophism in question to be laid down, two 
consequences follow, not only does God cease to be the judge of the 
world, but we are landed upon a proposition, which is revolting to 
every moral feeling, viz. that we are bound to do evil that good may 
come. It is very difficult to find the correct grammatical construc- 
tion here. We mention, in the first instance, the modes proposed 
by those who do not supply any thing. Grotius considers 6c. as 
meaning why, and the μὴ at the beginning of the verse with the ὅτι 
in the middle, as standing per metathesin ὅτυ μὴν why not. For ren- 
dering ὅτι, why, the only example, (and it is a questionable one,) 
which can be produced, is Mark ix. 11, 28; a metathesis of this 
kind is in the highest degree violent; and, in fine, the words are at 
too great a distance from each other, to admit of their being trans- 
posed. Others, such as the Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Baumgarten, 
consider ὅτι as merely a particle of resumption, required after the 
parenthetical clause, and contend that the μὴ should be united imme- 
diately with ποιήσωμεν. Such a use of ὅτι must be copied from the 
Hebrew, and there are even passages in which it is exemplified, as 
Isa. xlix. 19. The exposition is hence not inadmissible. We may 
also, however, suppose that we have here an example of negligent 
construction, and that something is to be supplied after μή. Some 
suggest λέγομεν, as Erasmus, Calvin, and Koppe. Louis de Dieu 
and Sebast. Schmidt γένοιτο. It is better, however, to supply ποιοὺ- 
μεν OF ποιήσωμεν, as is done by the Arabian translator, and by Luther, 
Bengel, and Heumann, who thinks himself the first author of the 
expedient. ‘The Apostle had intended to use this word after καὶ μὴ», 
but being then diverted from his purpose, he afterwards subjoins it to 
ὅτι. According to this view, we endeavour to copy the turn of the 
sentence in the following manner:—‘‘ And why should we not, as 
some, traducing us, say, we recommend to—do evil that good may 
come.” By this involution of the thought, which we have attempted 
to imitate in the translation, the omission of the πουήσωμεν is very 
easily explained. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gi cumenius, ap- 
pear to have adopted the same construction. Theodoret, on the other 
hand, supplies λέγομεν» likewise taking the sentence in an affirmative 
acceptation. As in some respects analogous, we may regard Thucyd. 
Hist. 1. 1. c. 184, xav αὐτὸν ἐμέλλησαν μέν εἰς τὸν Keada (ἐμβάλλειν) 
οὗπερ τοὺς xaxoveyous ἐμβάλλεῖν εἰώθεσαν. Compare also for the con- 


102 CHAPTER III. v. 8, 9. 


struction, 2 Cor. iii. 183, Why the Christians were charged with 
this blasphemy is mentioned by Chrysostom, Ambrose, and ‘Theodo- 
ret. Hear the last: addéy, Φησὶ, τούτων ἧμεις Φαμὲν, παρ᾽ ἑτέρων δὲ 
λέγειν συκοφαντούμεθα; οὗ τῆς συκοφαντίας τίσουσι δίκας. εἰδέναι μέντου 
XEN, ὡς τὼν ἱερὼν ἀποσφόλων λεγόντων, ὅπου ἐπλεόνασεν ἣ ἁμαρτία; ὑπεξε- 
πεξίσσευσεν ἡ χάξις: τινὲς τῇ θεοσεβείᾳ δουλεύοντες» ψευδολογίαις xar αὐτῶν 
κεχφημένοι, λέγειν αὐτοὺς ἔφασκον, ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακὰν ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά.ἢ 

ὧν τὸ xeiua ἔνδικόν ἐστι. This supplement is not, as is usually sup- 
posed, a refutation of those who urge the calumnious charge. Their 
refutation is already contained in the clause, πῶς χξινεῦ ὃ Θεὸς τὸν xOs- 
μον. Here they are only incidentally alluded to, and, therefore, this 
clause does not form a link of the argument. ᾿Ἔνδυχος quasi ἐν dixy 
ov? Hesychius: Svxavos, ἀξιος. 


PAC ΓΟ ΤΣ 


EXPLANATION HOW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRIVILEGES OF THE THE- 
OCRACY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATEVER, IN AS FAR AS RE- 
GARDS GUILT THROUGH SIN, AND NEED OF SALVATION, BETWEEN 
HIM THAT IS A JEW, AND HIM THAT IS NOT. v. 9—21. 


V.9, The defence which the Apostle makes for himself in the 
preceding section, against the charge of undervaluing the theocratical 
dispensation of God to Israel, was forced from him, and did not 
properly belong to the train of proofs which he is bringing forward, 
with the sole purpose of showing the guilt and need of salvation, 
both of those who were, and of those who were not, members of the 
theocracy. Accordingly, he now resumes his proper theme, which 
he had relinquished at the end of chapter 2d. Although, as his 
meaning is, this intermediate inquiry yields the result, that, in re- 
spect of what has been done for them by God, the Jews enjoy great 
privileges, by means of which it is made easier for them to enter into 
the kingdom of Christ, we are compelled, nevertheless, to come back 
to our former proposition, that in an equal degree with the heathen 
they are involved in guilt, and stand in need of salvation. So far as 
their divine ordinances are concerned, they have much, but, as re- 
gards their real character, they have no advantage at all over the 


* We say, affirms the Apostle, no such thing, but are traduced as saying 
so by others, who shall one day receive the punishment of their calumny. It 
is right to know, that when the holy Apostles taught, that where sin hath 
abounded, grace did much more abound, some professors of the old religion, 
spreading falsehoods to their prejudice, reported that they said, let us do evil 
that good may come. ς 


CHAPTER IiI. v. 9, 16. 108 


Gentiles. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose. Origen: 
Paulus velut arbiter inter Judzos et gentes temperat sermonem sem- 
per et librat, ut nunc nos nun¢ illos in quibusdam videatur arguere, et 
rursum singulas partes certa spe promissionis animat. 

The middle weoéyec6a. means to hold before one’s self, and hence 
is used with ἀσπίδα. It is also employed metaphorically with zeo- 
φασιν, and signifies to pretend, make an excuse. In this sense it may 
be taken along with zc ovy, as is done in the Syrian and Arabian ver- 
sions and by Koppe, and then the translation is, What pretext can 
we now allege? The reply would be οὐ πάντως, in the sense none 
at all. As οὐ πάντως, however, cannot very well have this meaning, 
it has been joined to the following verb; and the particle yae, which 
seems to resist such a conjunction, has, on the authority of several 
codices, been removed from the text. What pretext had the Apostle 
here in view? might now be asked. ‘The most natural reply would 
be, that which he stated in the context immediately preceding, and 
by which the Jews thought to evade the penal justice of God. But 
this does not accord with πεοῃτιασάμεθα κτλ.» Which treats of some- 
thing entirely different. We would therefore require to go still far- 
ther back, to the place at which Paul shows that the mere knowledge 
of the law does not profit the Jew, and that he is a sinner no less 
than the Gentile. In this way might the interpretation of weozyoueda, 
now under consideration, be defended, but at the expense of several 
suppositions, which are unnatural. Moreover, such a use of πεξοέχεσ- 
θαι; although frequent in classical Greek, is by no means so in Hel- 
lenistic. In that dialect weoéyew, in the active voice, signifies fo 
surpass. Now supposing, according to Wetstein’s opinion, that 
neosxoucda Meant, are we surpassed by the heathen? it is clear this 
would not harmonize with the sense of the passage, for in the first 
verse, mention was made of a περισσὸν τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαιοῦ, We must con- 
sequently embrace the plan of giving, what is unusual, an active 
signification to the Medial πεοέχεσθαι, according to which it is synony- 
mous with πεοβαλλεσθαυ, ὑπεξέχειν. In this manner, we are able to 
sunder τί οὖν, and οὐ πάντως retains its ordinary signification. τί οὖν 
is the Rabbinical 7319 pa; “xno, What comes from thence? A for- 
mula in use among the Rabbins when they take up the result of an 
inquiry. Πεοαιτιᾶσθαι. Grotius, who adopts the usual interpretation, 
translates this word by the legal phrase, accusationem prestruximus. 
Vulg. precausati sumus. Here correctly rendered by Ambrose, pro- 
bare. ‘Vo’ duaeriar, as undera lord. See Matt. vill. 9, Gal. ili, 22. 

V. 10. The declarations from the Psalms which delineate the great 
corruption of the men who surrounded David in the court of Saul, 
Paul here employs in order to describe the universal depravity of the 
whole human race. The 19th verse, however, shows that he meant 
the words of the Psalmist to apply, in the first instance, to the Jews. 
The quotations are collected from different Psalms. In the codex 
Alexandrinus of the LXX. they are all appended to the 14th, un- 
questionably from this passage. V.10—12 is from Ps. 14, after the 


104 CHAPTER Ill. v. LI—19. 


LXX. The words ὅτι οὐχ gore δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἴς are the Apostle’s own, 
in which he gives the substance of the following quotations. 

V. 11. Ps. xiv. 2. Συνιὼν 72:2, An enlightened knowledge 
comes only from converse with God, and an unenlightened is averse 
to holiness, 1 Cor. ii. 14, Ὃ ἐκζητῶν τὸν Θεόν. Pelagius: qui non 
requirit fundamentum, necesse est ut declinet. ‘To man, as a fallen 
creature, God is a hidden God. But a certain longing and presenti- 
ment, more or less strong, impels us to seek after that hidden being, 
until at last we find him, and are so closely united to him, that we 
can say, Ps. Ixxiii. 25, ““ Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there 
is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.”’ 

V. 12. ᾿Εξέχλιναν means, according to the Hebrew, which is 10, fo 
deviate from the way which leads to God. "Hyezusnoav to become 
useless or unprofitable; in the Hebrew mos to corrupt, metaphor- 
ically fo have an inward germ of vileness. “Eas ἑνός, a Hebraism 
for οὐδὲ eis, Calvin: Ut optimum mutue inter nos conjunctionis vin- 
culum nobis est in Dei cognitione, ita ejus ignorantiam fere sequitur 
inhumanitas, dum unusquisque, 8115 contemptis se ipsum amat. 

V. 13. Literally quoted from the LXX. of Psalm v. 9. The 
Psalmist calls the mouth of the wicked an open sepulchre, because, 
as from the one comes the stench of corruption, so from the other 
proceed pestilential words. Δολιοῦν to act deceitfully. ‘The Beo- 
tian Alexandrine termination of all the historical tenses is in σαν; as 
ex. gr. ἐλάβοσαν, ἐμάθοσαν. ἐδολιοῦσαν stands for ἐδολυοῦν-. 

V.14. After the LXX., with a slight alteration from Ps. x. 7, 
᾿Αξὰ as used by the LXX., signifies an oath. Greek authors have 
aeacdor obtestari. Suidas ἐπιθειάφειν τινί. aed in this place, how- 
ever, would seem, from the connection with the following noun, to 
mean perjury. For the word in the Hebrew is not mn, which 
would correspond with the πυκεία of the Septuagint, but nv, which 
signifies fraud.* 

V. 15. This passage is quoted, with some abbreviation, from Is. 
lix. 7. The man who is thoroughly corrupted does not hesitate at a 
wicked act, but executes it at once. 

V. 16. Also from Is. lix. 7, Σύντξιμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία VWI W. 
“Odor is, after the Hebrew, the way of living. 'The sense, accord- 
ingly, is ‘in all that they do there is destruction and misery;” sup- 
ply either for themselves or others. 

V.17. ὁδὸς εἰρήνης means a way of life from which flows salva- 
tion. Τινώσκειν to know practically, hence, to acknowledge. 

V. 18. is from Ps. xxxvi. 1. Φόβος Θεοῦ, the fear of God, arising 
from ἃ sense of his holiness. 

V. 19. Although, when he began to cite these passages, Paul had 
not the Jews exclusively before his eyes, but meant to paint the de- 
pravity of the whole race, he now, however, applies them directly to 


* [Tholuck has acknowledged, that the exposition here is too artificial. 
The passage probably means, “ their mouth is full of cursing and anger.”] 


CHAPTER II. v. 19, 20. 105 


that nation; and, as he perhaps thought that they might be misled by 
pride to fancy that such statements could not be intended for them, he 
subjoins, that whatever the Old ‘Testament declares, it declares of all 
who are under it. So Chrysostom, Calvin and Grotius. 

ὃ νόμος. In compliance with the exposition here given, we require 
to take νόμος in its more general acceptation, as when joined with χαὺ 
οὗ neopyntar, the writings of the Old Testament. In this acceptation 
it is used, John x. 34, xii. 34, 1 Cor. xiv. 21. It may be objected, 
that when the word is so interpreted, the expression of ty τῷ νόμῳ 
does not correspond with it, but neither is this necessary, if the dif- 
ferent idea be but expressed by a similar word. On the other hand, 
it is not inadmissible to take νόμος in the narrower sense of the law, 
as is done by Calovius and Ammon. In this case Paul must have 
viewed the νόμος as the reigning principle of the Old ‘Testament; as 
throughout the New, it is the χάρις which speaks to man: and his 
meaning is, “ whatsoever emanates from the spirit of the law, in the 
writings of the the Old Testament, is addressed precisely to such as 
lived under the constitution of the Old Testament, and hence the Jew 
must take it home to himself, and urges to no purpose his proud 
objections.”” Hesychius gives as synonymous with ὑπόδικος, ὑπεύ- 
θυνος, EEworNs, ἔνοχος δίκης. 

V. 20. With admirable skill the Apostle now puts the key-stone 
to the inquiry which he has been carrying on from the 18th verse of 
the Ist chapter. "Eeya νόμου. We here already encounter this 
term, so full of import in the doctrine of Paul. Under vowos, many, 
from ancient times, have contended, that nothing else was meant, 
than that portion of the Mosaic law which contains the ritual 
precepts. We may enumerate Ambrose, ‘Theodoret, ‘Theophylact, 
Pelagius, Lombard, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, 
and Ammon. But the fact, that such a separation of the ceremonial 
from the moral part of the law, was by no means usual among the 
Jews, is decidedly opposed to this restricted interpretation of the 
vouos. In their constitution, the two were intimately combined. 
The observance of the ritual was to them a duty of precisely the 
same obligation as the performance of the moral precepts. For this 
reason alone, it behoves us, when the Apostle speaks of the veyous τοῦ 
νόμου; to understand the whole amount of the duties obligatory upon 
the Jews, whether they relate to external rites or moral actions 
properly so called. That by the word νόμος the idea which he 
means to express, is that of a religious and moral law, externally im- 
posing a command and obligation, apart from any regard to its sub- 
ject matter, results indisputably from the connection of the whole 
doctrine of St. Paul, as well as from that of particular texts. Comp. 
the exposition of Usteri, Paulinischer Lehrbegriff, S. 23. ff. Even 
in the present passage, the connection demands this acceptation of 
νόμος. His object, throughout the whole of the foregoing inquiry, 
had been to show that the Jew is guilty, because he does not keep 

14 


106 CHAPTER III. v. 20. 


the divine Jaw, outwardly imposing obligations upon him; and that 
for the same reason, the heathen is guilty, even as transgressing that 
law implanted by nature within him, and which is also outwardly 
obligatory. Now, how inconsistent would it be with all this, were 
he to draw the conclusion, that in so far as it respects a certain sub- 
ject, viz. the ritual precepts, the law is incapable of justifying a man, 
but that it is able to do so, in as far as it respects what is properly 
moral. The hinge, upon which his argumentation turns, is not the 
matter and subject of the law, but the relation of every divine pre- 
‘cept, to the fulfilment of it on the part of man. And if such be the 
case, it follows that, in what he says of the νόμος, he refers also to 
the moral law with which we are acquainted, seeing that that is not 
a mere subjective instinct, but an objective command. In the second 
chapter, he had in fact placed the moral Jaw, as engraved on the 
conscience of the heathen, upon a level with the law of Moses; and 
subsequently, in the seventh chapter, after speaking in the Ist and 
7th verses of the Mosaic law, he insensibly makes a transition to the 
γόμος tov νοὸς, V. 23. The right comprehension of these terms νόμος» 
and feya τοῦ νόμου is of high importance. For if we are to under- 
stand by them nothing but the mere rityal precepts, it follows, that 
the chief merit of the Old ‘Testament consisted in imposing a number 
of superfluous and burdensome ordinances, and that all we are in- 
debted for to the New, is the abrogation of these. But if Christianity 
did nothing more than liberate man from a multitude of oppressive 
rites, its utility would be altogether of a negative kind. Under such 
circumstances, we cannot blame Melancthon, when, in his excursus 
xiv., he gives the preference, among the expositors, to Augustine, for 
having extended the meaning of Zeya νόμου, beyond mere ritual ob- 
servances. He adds: Quid enim sit liberatio a lege, prorsus ignorant 
illi, qui eam intelligunt tantum de ceremoniis. Several Roman 
Catholic expositors take a middle path, holding that moral actions 
are meant, but only those that precede conversion. ‘this is suggested 
by Augustine in Quest. 83. Qu. 67, whom Thomas Aquinas, and 
Salmeron follow. ‘The negative with vas, means none at all. Beza: 
Omnis caro non justificatur, pro quo planius dixeris, nuila caro justi- 
ficatur. ‘Che Apostle designates man by cae, which has the con- 
comitant idea of weakness, as it were,“ poor feeble man cannot jus- 
tify himself before the eye of God.’’ ‘The law, whether written 
upon the conscience, or engraved upon tables, may teach man to 
know what sin is; but it cannot teach him to hate it, nor inspire the 
love of what is holy. Hence it aggravates his sinfulness, by show- 
ing him on all hands what things he ought to do, and what to leave 
undone. Chrysostom: εἰ yae αὐχεῖς ἐπὶ τῷ νομῳ, αὐτός σε μᾶλλον κα- 
ταισχύνει. οὗτός σον τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐχπομπεύει. 5 Melancthon: Hee ' 


* If you glory in the law, it rather puts you to shame, by making a display 
of your sins. 


CHAPTER Ill. v. 21, 22. 107 


responsio prorsus nova et absurda videtur mundo, lege tantum ostendi 
peccata non tolli. Nam legum latores in imperiis ferunt leges, non 
tantum ut ostendant peccata, sed ut tollant. Verum non concionatur 
Paulus de moribus externis. 


FP Ag TPE, 


ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW METHOD BY WHICH GOD JUSTIFIES ALL, 
AND WHICH HE HAS DEVISED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR INABILITY 
TO ACQUIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR THEMSELVES, BY A PERFECT FUL- 
FILMENT OF THE LAW. Vv. 21—27. 


V. 21. Paul has stated the grounds on which all men stand in 
need of some salvation, similar to that of which he had announced 
himself as the messenger to the Romans, chap. i. 16, 17. He has 
thrown Jew and Gentile into perplexity as to the way of obtaining 
justification before God, no one being capable of securing it by ful- 
filment of the law. He now therefore at once draws aside the cur- 
tain, and exposes to the eyes of mankind an entirely new and hitherto 
unheard of scheme, devised by God, and calculated for the justifica- 
tion of the whole human race. Cicumenius: ᾿Επιδεύξας αὐτοὺς μηδὲν 
ὠφελημένους ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, KOU εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν ἀγαγὸν μεθόδου σῶσαυ δυναμέ- 
γῆς: εὐκαίρως εἰς τὴν πίστιν εἰσβάλλει Χριστοῦ. 

Νυνὶ δὲ is not a particle of transition, but designates the time, now, 
in the revelation of the New Testaments; ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ, V. 26. 

Xwels νόμου without any respect to moral obligations, without the 
Taw, in so far as it is a νόμος ἔργων. 27. δΔικχαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is the same 
as inc. i. 17. πΠεφανέφωται. ‘Theophylact: Καλῶς sive τὸ, πεφανέ- 
carat, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι ἐχέχρυπτο πάλαι οὖσα. καὶ διὰ τοῦ Ermey, μαξτυ- 
δουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου; δηλοῦ ὅτυ οὐ MEOSPATOS ἐστι. 

Μαεξτυξουμένη. The Apostle here intimates, as he had before done, 
c. i. 2, that it is not a new doctrine which in teaches, and that the 
Christian revelation was closely connected with the preparatory 
economy, partly by the law which awakened a sense of sin, and 
partly by the prophecies, as the presentiment of a coming salvation. 

V. 22. A more special definition of the justification in question. 


* Having shown them that they were destitute of all help from the law, and 
brought them to desire some effectual way of salvation, he casts them oppor- 
tunely into the faith of Christ. 

He uses well the word manifested, showing that, although hidden, it was 
of ancient date, and, in like manner, when he says, z/ was witnessed by the law, 
he declares the same, even that it is not of to-day. 


108 CHAPTER III. v. 23, 24, 25. 


Διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It is the effect of a beleving ward 
acceptance of Christ in all that he was for mankind. 

εἰς πάντος καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. Supply, as suggested 
by Luther, ἐχομένη. One is tempted to attach to each of the prepo- 
sitions a special meaning of its own; and accordingly, Seb. Schmidt 
and Chr. Schmid refer εἰς to the mere publication, and é7 te the ap- 
propriation of grace. ‘The ancients, Theodoret and CScumenius, 
very arbitrarily apply the former πάντας to the Jews, and the latter 
to the Gentiles. It is better, however, not to suppose a difference of 
meaning in the two prepositions. Paul’sJively temperament led him 
to vary his expressions, without attaching to them in every instance 
a different import. See Gal. i. 1. 

V. 23. To the self-righteous Jew it must have been a very re- 
pulsive doctrine, that by obedience to his law, he could by no means 
earn a title to salvation, and so distinguish himself above the heathen. 
But the more difficult it was for him to admit this truth, the more 
does the Apostle feel himself obliged to insist upon it. He, there- 
fore, once more declares it, ‘‘ If, on our part, there were conformity 
to the law, this new way of justification might not perhaps be neces- 
sary, but seeing that we are destitute of that, God’s justifying us 
through Christ is a work of free grace.’ δόξα like 1123, and also 
monn, praise, glory. 1 Chr. xvi. 28, 29. Equivalent are the expres- 
sions δόξα παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, John v. 44, and δόξα τοὺ Θεοῦ, John xii. 43, 
and so likewise, καύχημα neds τὸν Θεόν. It is altogether arbitrary on 
the part of Glassius and Calov. to interpret δόξα, the Divine image. 

V. 24. The new way of justification, which is stated generally in 
verses 21 and 22, is now, as far as the 27th, clearly and magnificently 
unfolded, and its relation to the human race at the same time taken 
into view. So that verse 23 is to be regarded as interrupting the 
development of the subject. 

Διχαιούμενου SUpply εἰσὶ, or rather it is to be considered as properly 
a participle to be collocated Hebraistically with ὑστεφοῦνταυ. It would 
have added to the perspicuity if, at this place, where he begins a prin- 
cipal head of argument, the Apostle had made the transition with 
aang, and a verbum finitum. 

Δωρεὰν, Without any thing done on our parts, but the believing 
acceptance of that which has been objectively wrought out for us. 
We require to bring neither sacrifice for expiation, nor any fixed 
amount of legal performances. Ambrose: Nihil operantes nee vicem 
reddentes. In the two following verses the ἀπολύτεωσις ἐν Xevora 
᾿Ιησοῦ, is explained and evolved. 

V. 25 and 26 are closely interwoven, and hence arises the question: 
In what relation does the latter stand to the former? Is it co-ordinate 
or subordinate? It will be necessary, however, in the first instance, 
to determine the sense of the particular words. 

Ἱλαστήξιον. ‘This word is properly an adjective, and we have to 
inquire, What is the noun to be joined with it?) The choice lies be- 
tween two, ἐπίθεμα and θῦμα. Like other ancient nations, the He- 


CHAPTER III. v. 25, 26. 109 


brews had a sacred ark as a symbol of the Divine presence. This 
was covered with a golden lid, called N33, from 952, fo cover. Upon 
the lid, and wrought as a part of it, were two cherubim, turned face 
to face, and spreading out their wings as a covering to the lid of the 
ark. Over these cherubim was the throne of God, whence Moses 
received the Divine oracles. See Ex. xxv, 22, Num. vii. 89, (Jahn’s 
Archeologie, Ὁ. iii. 5. 242; Lundius Von den Jiidischen Heiligthii- 
mern, |. i. 6. 13, and the learned treatise, De arca Feederis, c. 9. in 
Bux. Fil. Exercitationes Historice, Bas. 1659.) On the yearly feast 
of expiation, the High-Priest sprinkled upon the lid of the ark the 
blood of a bullock seven times, and seven times also the blood of a 
goat, as a sign of the atonement of the sins of the people. Even the 
Jews recognized in the ark of the covenant a most important typical 
meaning. Abarbanel says on the subject: ‘¢ Far be the thought, that 
the cherubim served as a mere ornament, and betokened nothing 
higher.”’” In the marginal gloss to the Talmud, (‘Tract. Berachoth, 
chap, v.) it is declared, ‘ God hath given us the figures of the taber- 
nacle, and of the holy place, and of all their furniture, that we may 
thence learn the heavenly truths.” Now, as the lid of the ark was 
in this manner likewise a symbol of the grace of God, it is probable, 
that the LXX. thence derived its name; 752, besides the primitive 
meaning fo cover, having also the metaphorical meaning to afone, 
and that they accordingly translated it ἑλαστήξιον, the expiatory. In 
two passages, Ex. xxv. 17, xxxvii. 6, they even annex ἐπίθεμα. 
Even so Philo (de vita Mosis, 1. iii. p. 668. D. ed. Frank.) speaks 
of a πῶμα ἱλαστήξιον, and afterwards of an invdeua πεοσαγοφξεύομενον 
ἱλαστήξιον, and says Οἵ it, ἔοιχεν εἶναυ σύμβολον φυσικώτερον τῆς ἵλεω τοῦ 
Θεοῦ δυνάμεως. ‘The same expression is also used, Heb. ix. 5. This 
signification of ἱλαστήξιον has accordingly been adopted by numerous 
expositors, as Origen, Theodoret, Theophylact, G@2cumenius, Eras- 
mus, Luther, and others; and the meaning of the passage which 
results from it is as follows: ‘‘ As the lid of the ark of the covenant, 
when sprinkled with blood, imparted to the Israelite a firm confidence 
of the forgiveness of his sins, in like manner the Saviour, and spe- 
cially his death, is the security for our redemption, to which we may 
believingly look. Itis objected to this explanation, that the Apostle, 
in a letter, addressed as much to heathen as to Hebrew Christians, 
would scarcely have used an image so entirely Jewish. On the one 
hand, however, the ἱλαστήδιον was a thing of such consequence in 
the Jewish worship, that Gentile Christians must necessarily have 
been acquainted with it, accustomed as they were to the diligent study 
of the scriptures of the Old Testament, and as, moreover, many of 
them were previously proselytes to Judaism. Again, on the other 
hand, the Apostle in this, as in all the other Epistles, mentions nume- 
rous special facts, the knowledge of which, by those to whom he 
wrote, he ought as little, according to that doctrine, to have assumed. 
Rom. ix. 10, 1 Cor. x. Nor can any exception be taken to the ex- 
planation in question on the score of the unsuitableness of the image. 


110 CHAPTER III. Vv. 25, 26. 


It is said, that the blood of the Saviour is the blood of the victim, and 
that hence Christ may well be compared to the sacrificed ammal, but 
with no propriety to the lid of the ark. Strictly speaking, the simi- 
litude requires to be represented in the manner contended for, and the 
felt want of correspondence, when it is so represented, made the 
Fathers have recourse to the most forced expositions. Just, how- 
ever, as Christ is represented in the New ‘Testament, sometimes as 
high priest, and sometimes also as victim, so, in like manner, under 
the Old, may not only the slaughtered animal, but also the mercy- 
seat sprinkled with atoning blood, be considered as furnishing a type 
ofhim. From all this it appears, that there is nothing which can he 
brought forward as a valid objection to the meaning we have given to 
ἱλαστήφιον. Nevertheless, however, the other explanation of the word, 
according to which θῦμα is the noun supplied, expiatory sacrifice, 
seems more eligible, and especially for this reason, that, as Bucer 
remarks, it has in the New ‘Testament the analogy of doctrine more 
decidedly in its favour. John i. 29, Eph. v. 2, 1 Pet. i. 19; ii. 24, 
Heb. ix. 324. As to the elliptical form of the word, it corresponds 
exactly with that of other terms applied to a sacrifice, as, ex. gr. 
χαφιστήξιον; σωτήξιον; τὰ ET NOLO, τὰ γενέθλια. It is found in Josephus 
with this import, which, accordingly, has been embraced by Hesy- 
chius, Grotius, Clericus, Kypke, Elsner, Heumann, and others. 
There remains, however, a third meaning to be mentioned, which is 
also admissible. ‘Inacrzevov, the neuter of the adjective, may be con- 
sidered as used for the substantive, and synonymous with iaacpos, 
and thus, the abstract standing for the concrete, for Serye. This is 
the interpretation adopted by the Vulgate, which renders the word 
propitiatio; so also, as it would appear, the Syrian, and we may 
add, Louis de Dieu and Zegerus. ‘The parallel passage, 1 John ii. 2, 
where Christ is called ἑλασμὸς, favours this reading. 

How then shall we understand weoedevo? προτίθημι primarily sig- 
nifies spectandum proponere, fo set in view for the purpose of selec- 
tion, or sale, or sacrifice, &c. Hesiod. Theogon, V. 537, where, of 
the offering made by Prometheus to Jupiter, it is said μέγαν βοῦν 
προύθηκεν, Διὸς νόον ἐξαπαφίσχων. “Transferred to things spiritual, it 
has a variety of senses, fo offer, produce, prefer. In the middle 
voice, it is specially used to denote all kinds of exhibitions, also to 
resolve. If, now, we inquire which meaning best suits the present 
passage, that will depend upon whether we interpret ἑλαστήξιον, 
mercy-seat or atoning sacrifice. In the first case, the sense fo set 
up to view is the one to be chosen. In the second, the strong ana- 
logy with Eph. i. 9, would lead to a preference of constituere. In- 
deed the prominence given in that Epistle to the fact of the purpose 
of salvation having been formed before the creation of the world, ren- 
ders it probable that, in the text quoted from it, and therefore in the 
present passage, the idea of time expressed by πρό and the idea of 
space are both included. 

πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτοὺ αἵματι for εἰς τὸ αἵμᾳ Stands, by metonomy, for 


CHAPTER Ili. v. 25, 26. 111 


bloody death, the ἀχμὴ of his holy and love-devoted life. ‘The clause 
is best conjoined as an epexegesis with ἱλαστήξιον. ‘Thus far extends 
the general proposition of the Apostle, which, in substance, means 
as follows: ‘* By the believing appropriation of that, which Jesus 
Christ, during the whole course of his blessed life, until it terminated 
in a bloody death, was, and did, for the human race, men are made 
partakers of justification before God.’’ He now proceeds to show, 
what the Saviour’s life and death actually achieved for mankind. 
The explanation of the sequel depends upon what is the meaning of 
δικαιοσύνη" how διὰ τὴν πάξεσιν is to be understood; whether διὰ with 
the accusative, is equivalent to διὰ with the genitive; if wageovs is the 
same as ἀφεσις; and, in fine, whether we are to view eos ἔνδειξιν as a 
mere resumption of εἰς ἔνδειξιν. First, with respect to Scxacoovry, 
some, as Ambrose and Locke, interpret faithfulness, others, accord- 
ing to a sense in which it is elsewhere used by Paul, goodness. So 
Theodoret, Socinus, Grotius, Bolten, and Koppe. Now it is true that, 
considered per se, it may signify goodness, even like the Hebrew 
MPT, which is sometimes synonymous with 107. ‘The διὰ with the 
aaeative is furthermore supposed to be of the same force as διὰ with 
the genitive, and πάρξεσις to be synonymous with ἀφεσις, from which 
the following sense results, ‘for the manifestation of his goodness 
by the forgiveness of sins before committed.”” According to this 
view, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ is best construed with προγεγονότων, committed in 
the time of forbearance. eis ἔνδειξιν this class of expositors are 
disposed to consider as a returning upon εἰς ἔνδειξιν, “ for the mani- 
festation of his goodness in the time now being.”’ In this case, δίχαιον 
will also be taken in the sense of good, and the clause, in which it 
occurs, interpreted, ‘*so that even he appears full of kindness, and in 
virtue thereof justifies the believer.”” ‘There are many things, how- 
ever, which speak against this exposition. In the first place, it can- 
not be shown, that δικαιοσύνη occurs any where in the writings of 
Paul in this strange sense, but uniformly means righteousness or 
holiness. Much less can any shade of the idea goodness be imparted 
to δίκαιος and δικαιοῦν. Again, the mistake of the case after dia is not 
probable, considering how scrupulous Paul always is in this respect. 
Moreover, it is unlikely that weds %vSe should be a mere resumption 
of εἰς ἔνδειξιν. ‘The change of the preposition makes the reverse 
more probable. Finally, as to πάξεσις» it is true that it may be con- 
sidered equivalent to ἄφεσις. In Dion. Halic. we read (Antiqu. 1. 7, 
p- 446,) τὴν μὲν ὁλοσχεξὴ ndecow οὐχ εὕξοντο; τὴν δὲ eis χξεόνον ὧν ἂν 
ἠξίουν ἀναβολὴν ἔλαβον, Where delay is opposed to total remission, 
πάρφεσις. If we compare, however, Acts xvii. 80, τοὺς μὲν οὖν χεό- 
vous τῆς ἀγνοίας ὑπεξιδὼν ὁ Θεὸς, We Shall feel inclined to affix another 
meaning to πάρεσις, and interpret it passing by, overlooking. In this 
signification it was certainly used by the Greeks, Xenophon, (Cyr. 
5, 4, '7,) has πολὺ pec2or mag eis θαῦμα, ἐμὲ θαυμάζεις. Id. (Hipparch. 
a0. ) ἁμαφτήματα παξίεναυ ἀκόλαστα. So also Dion. Hal. παξίεναι 
ἁμαφτάδα ἀζήμιον. Appian uses πάξεσις like ἀμέλεια, χαταφεόνησις. In 


112 CHAPTER III. V. 27. 


Ecelesiasticus μὴ φείδεσθαν and μὴ παρξίεναν are used parallel. Book 
of Wisdom, xagoear signifies to overlook sin. Accordingly the Apos- 
tle first shows the relation of the scheme of redemption to the period 
before Christ. God has, as it were, permitted sin to pass as if he 
did not observe it. But now in this plan of salvation, his holiness is 
manifested in such a way that the former sins, which he tolerated the 
while with ἀνοχὴν are made to appear odious in his sight. The πρό 
in προγεγονότων relates naturally to the period before Christ’s advent. 
Paul further shows the relation of the scheme of redemption to the 
τῷ νῦν καιρῷ. In this also must God’s holiness be manifested. ‘The 
voy καιρὸς forms a contrast to the ἐν τῇ dvoyy. We would not, how- 
ever, say, that the other view, according to which eds ἔνδειξιν 15 con- 
sidered as a repetition of the ets %vdec, is inadmissible. In con- 
formity with it, Michaelis expounds stiflly but correctly, ‘‘ for the 
vindication of his justice with regard to sins once committed, and 
which he with patience and long-suffering bore—for the vindication 
of his righteousness at the present time.’’? ‘The Apostle is hence 
enabled to conclude, that by this institution, the Divine holiness is 
placed upon a firm basis, while, at the same time, the justification 
of men is wrought out. As to the manner in which the plan of sal- 
vation produces these effects, see the observations upon chap. v. 15 
—19. Bengel: Summum hoc paradoxon evangelicum, nam in lege 
conspicitur Deus justus et condemnans, in evangelio justus ipse et 
justificans peccatores. 


POA ts  ΤΥ": 


EPIPHONEMA: IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN HOW BY THIS SCHEME OF JUSTI- 
FICATION, ALL OPPORTUNITY OF AGGRANDIZING SELF IS DONE 
AWAY, AND HEATHEN AND JEW OBTAIN MERCY ON THE SAME 
TERMS. v. 27—3l1. 


V. 27. It may be asked, whether the Apostle addressed himself 
principally to the Jews, or jointly and equally to Jews and Gentiles. 
The former is the more likely. He has still in his thoughts the pre- 
sumption of the Jews, against which he had inveighed up to the 21st 
verse, and to them he again reverts at verse 29. In this view, the 
thought here uttered by the Apostle is the same with what is delivered 
in the 9th verse, viz. ‘Inasmuch as Christianity finds the subject of 
the theocracy equally with the man who is an alien to it, in the con- 
dition of not fulfilling the law, it lays the same necessity upon both 
of taking refuge in the new plan of salvation, and does away that 
status of the Jew, in virtue of which he arrogated to himself the right 


CHAPTER Ill. v. 28, 29, 30. 113 


ef looking down upon the Gentile. Theodoret: Καύχησιν δὲ καλεῖ τὸ 
ὑψηλὸν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων geovyua. Compare Ephes. ii. 8, 1 Cor. i. 29. 
It would perhaps, however, be more correct to take the abstract xav- 
χήσις in the sense of the concrete xavynua, materia gloriandi. 

᾿Εξεχλείσθη. Theodoret: οὐκ tru χώξαν ἔχει. Chrysostom: émee 
ἀχαιρίας Zort. In this sense, Paul speaks of a παλαιοτης γράμματος; 
Rom. vii.6. If it is only by the acceptance of an objective redemp- 
tion that men are justified and sanctified, no one can boast of his own 
efforts. 

Διὰ ποίου νόμου; Chrysostom: Ἰδοὺ χαὺ τὴν πίστιν νόμον ἐχάλεσεν» 
ἐμφιλοχωρὼν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν; ὥστε παφαμυθείσθαυ τὴν δοχοῦσαν εἶναυ χαυνο- 
τομίαν. τίς δὲ ὁ τῆς πίστεως νόμος: διὰ χάρυτος σώζεσθαι. Νόμος 15 
most frequently, like 777, interpreted in the general sense of doc- 
trine, as in James i. 25. In several passages of Paul's writings, 
which are cited as examples, this sense, it must be confessed, is less 
suitable, Rom. viii. 2, vii. 25, where, according to the Apostle’s pe- 
culiar phraseology, it ought rather to be rendered rule or method. As 
this latter sense, however, does not answer in the present case, νόμος 
must undoubtedly be translated doctrine, which is an extension of 
the original meaning law. Νόμος ἔφγων is a very common expression, 
and may here, for the sake of assimilation, have suggested the phrase 
νόμος πίστεως. 

V. 28. is an inference drawn from the preceding, as οὖν itself in- 
dicates. Several codices, instead of οὖν read γὰρ, which, however, 
does not conform so well to St. Paul’s train of thought. 

Λογιδόμεθα. Not properly συλλογιδόμεθα, argumentando concludi- 
mus, as Thevdoret expounds it, but as in chap. viii. 18, Heb. xi. 19, 
persuasum nobis habemus. So 2 Cor. x. 7, Phil. iv. 8. Erasmus 
skilfully: Existimamus enim, (better igitur) id quod res est, posthac 
quemvis hominem per fidem justitiam consequi posse. 

Idsree is translated by Luther allein durch den glauben. Against 
this the shallow-minded among his Catholic opponents raised a 
mighty outery. The ἐὰν μὴ of Gal. ii. 16, amounts to as much, and 
even Catholic translations introduce the alone in the present passage. 

Thus, in the Niirnberg edition, 1483, it is nur durch den glauben. 
The LXX. frequently interpolate it where it does not stand in the 
Hebrew, Lev. iii. 11, Deut. vi. 13, 1 Sam. x. 19. The Fathers 
often affirm, ‘that by faith only is man justified.”” Hence Erasmus 
(De ratione concionandi, 1. 3) says: Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapi- 
data hoe seculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur. With 
regard to νόμος teyav, which many imagine to imply only ritual pre- 
cepts, see the comment upon v. 20. 

V. 29 and 30. The Apostle could not deny, that in one respect 
God might be regarded as the God of the Jews only, viz. in his having 


* Observe, he has called even faith a law, fondly dwelling upon such names, 
for the purpose of softening what has the semblance of being a novelty. What 
is then the law of faith? It is, that salvation must be obtained through grace. 

15 


114 CHAPTER Ill. V. 31. 


given to them exclusively institutions preparatory to the redemption. 
Inasmuch as these very institutions, however, were intended to be 
subservient to the introduction of a salvation designed for all mankind, 
God’s interest in the fate of Gentile nations was not in abeyance even 
in the establishment of the Old Testament theocracy. Besides, 
even in the Old Testament, it is in many places distinctly averred, 
that heathen nations are by no means shut out from manifestations of 
the Divine love, so that Paul might confidently look for an acknow- 
Jedgment on the part of the Jews, that the God whom Abraham styled 
ys) ΟἿ 7p was also the God of the heathen. 

Several codices read εἴπερ in place of ἐπείπερ, which cements more 
closely the connection between the two verses, and gives greater em- 
phasis to the thought. ‘The prepositions ?x and διὰ must be supposed 
to possess the same force, and yet the change can scarcely be thought 
to have been undesigned. Perhaps it implies a gentle stroke of irony, 
of which we have elsewhere, in St. Paul’s writings, still stronger 
examples, Gal. v. 12. 

V. 31. Ananthypophora. Here, where the Apostle affirms that 
salvation is attainable apart from all demands of the law, he might be 
met with that scruple which at all times has forced itself upon the 
mind of man, in contemplating this extraordinary scheme of salva- 
tion, viz. whether such a doctrine does not lead to immorality. The 
formal confutation of this objection he takes up at chaps. vi. vii. but 
especially at the viii. At present he does no more than briefly and 
generally attest that the Christian doctrine of faith produces holiness. 
Equally forced and insipid are the expositions of this verse, given by 
those who understand by Zeya νόμου; the observance of the ceremonial 
law. So that Cocceius might well say of it: Haec jugulant opinio- 
nem Socinianorum. Of all these, Erasmus undoubtedly gives the 
best; and yet how unnatural is even his! Adeo non abolemus legem 
aut labefactamus, ut eam etiam confirmemus stabiliamusque, id pre- 
dicantes factum quod lex futurum promiserat, eumque nuntiantes in 
quem, ceu scopum, summa legis spectabat. Neque enim id aboletur, 
quod in meliorem reparatur statum, non magis quam si defluentibus 
arborum floribus succedat fructus, aut umbre succedat corpus. In 
what manner and in how far the Christian doctrine of justification 
establishes the law, the Apostle does not here say, but it is shown in 
chaps. Vi., vii., vill., where he describes how, subjectively at least, the 
redeemed yield a certain satisfaction to the law. He demonstrates, 
to wit, how this moral law, per se, does not suffice to beget love for 
the performance of it; that there exists in man, according to the 
present circumstances of his nature, a conflict of tendencies, some of 
which are favourable and some repugnant to what is divine; that, on 
the other hand, a believing acquiescence in the scheme of salvation 
engenders in the heart the love of God, and therewith the love of 
God’s law; and that thus a new principle of life is implanted in him, 
which operates from the heart outwards, and brings forth the χαξπὸς 
τοῦ πνεύματος. In this way, in the case of the believing Christian, 


CHAPTER Ill. V. 8]. 115 


obedience is actually rendered to the law, and that of the genuine 
kind, seeing that it rests on the inward basis of a mind penetrated 
with love to God. Such is the manner in which faith subjectively 
establishes the law. It likewise establishes it, however, objectively, 
inasmuch as Christ by his holy life and death, perfectly fulfilled it, 
and thereby satisfied the demands of the moral government of the 
world. Compare the fine sentiments of Calvin upon this verse. 
However true this is, and much although it may seem to stand here 
in its right place, still it cannot be denied that a still closer coherence 
with the sequel is effected by another explanation, suggested by 
Flatt and Koppe. The Apostle had declared in the 21st verse, that 
he was the preacher of a method of justification, which, however 
new it might appear, had nevertheless been already anticipated and 
foretold in the Old Testament. In the 4th chapter he endeavours to 
establish this by proofs. It is not impossible, therefore, that by the 
word νόμος we are to understand the books of the Old Testament, 
and that Paul means to say, that the entire doctrines he had before 
been teaching were founded upon truths already recognized under the 
former covenant. In this acceptation the verse forms a convenient 
transition to the 4th chapter. In regard to its meaning, Chrysostom 
observes: τεία τοίνυν ἐνταῦθα ἀπέδειξε, καὶ OTe χωρὶς νόμου δυνατὸν δι- 
καιωθήναιγ καὶ OTL τοῦτο οὐκ ὑσχυσεν 6 νόμος, καὶ ὅτι ἡ πίστις αὐτῷ οὐ 
μάχεται. 


* He has here demonstrated three things; that justification is possible with- 
out the law; that the law was unable to effect it; and that it is not hostile to 
the law. 


CHAPTER FOURTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


For the purpose of still further corroborating in the eyes of Jews the Christian 
doctrine of justification, the Apostle shows that under the Old Testament, 
no less than under the New, the source of the divine goodness was on 
God’s part free grace, and the condition of its reception on the part of man, 
faith. This is manifest from a Psalm of David’s, but more especially from 
the history of Abraham, that is, from the relation to God of two individuals 
who, above all other men, might, if the thing had been possible, have 
founded a claim upon the merit of their works. The life of Abraham par- 
ticularly evinces that his works by no means sufficed to accomplish his justi- 
fication. If, however, the Israelites chose to ascribe, either to circumcision, 
which is the sign, or to the law, which is the foundation of the theocracy, 
any influence and co-operation in the matter of justification, it could be 
shown, that, on the contrary, these distinctions of Israel rested solely and 
exclusively upon the righteousness which is by faith, which was thus, as 
it were, the cause of the theocracy. 


PARTITION. 


1. Proof that Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith. V. 1—6. 

2. Proof that David was justified by free grace. V.6—8. 

3. Proof that circumcision, the sign of the theocratical covenant, had no share 
in the justification of Abraham. Far from being subservient to thatend, 
it was much more aconsequence of it. V.9—12. 

4, Proof of the establishment of the theocracy without the co-operation of the 
law. So far from the law having given rise to the theocracy, both the 
theocracy and the law rested upon the righteousness which is by faith. 
Υ. 13—17. 

5. Description of Abraham’s faith, and statement of the noble benefits accru- 
ing to believers, as exhibited in his example. V. 18—25. 


RAG al. 


PROOF THAT ABRAHAM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, BUT BY FAITH. 
v. 1—6. 


V.1. Ir was natural for the Israelite, upon hearing of this new 
method of salvation proposed by Paul, to reflect upon the Old Tes- 
tament, and to ask, in objection, whether the holy men, whose lives 
are there related, did not obtain justification before God by perfect 
obedience to the law? Theophylact: xai φησὺν, ὅτυ οὐδὲ οὗτος ὁ τοσαῦ- 


CHAPTER Iv. v. l. 117 


τα χαὶ τὰ τηλιχαῦτα κατορθώσας, ἐδικαιώθη Ex TOY ἔῤγων, GAA Ex τῆς 
πίστεως." 
τί ov. ‘The οὖν need not here be considered as a mere formula 
transeundi, it is grounded in the Apostle’s train of ideas: What then, 
that being the case with justification, shall we say of the righteous 
men who lived under the Old ‘Testament? 
τὸν πατέρα, ἡμῶν. We must not follow Cocceius, and take this 
appellation in the spiritual sense, which is afterwards at the 16th 
verse developed by St. Paul. It here means our bodily progenitor, 
the Hebrew 18 forefather, Gen. xxviii. 13, 1 Kings xv. 11.. The © 
_ Rabbins give the same name to Abraham. Κατὰ σάφχα is by most 
expositors, and, among others, by Chrysostom, Erasmus and Lim- 
borch, joined to xaréea. But to this it may be objected, first, that it 
produces a harsh hyperbaton, to avoid which, several codices of au- 
thority have placed εὐξφηκέναν before τὸν xaréga ἡμῶν, and, 2cly, that 
in such a conjunction, κατὰ odexa would be a superfluous addition, 
while, on the other hand, some supplementary clause would be re- 
quired to define etenxévax. It is, therefore, more correct to construe 
it with εὑρηκέναι. 
ebevoxewy, both in profane and sacred authors, means, like the Hebrew 
N31, fo acquire, earn, Luke i. 30, Heb. ix. 12. What then, in con- 
nection with this word, does χατὼ σάρκα imply? The usual meaning 
of Saez, in reference to the Old Testament theocracy, is ‘ the out- 
ward privileges conferred by God upon the Israelites.” So 1 Cor. 
_x. 18, Phil. iii. 3, Gal. vi. 12. In this general sense it is taken by 
Cocceius and Witsius, who thus explain the text, “by the Mosaic 
economy it was impossible for him to be justified, for it did not then 
exist.”” Wetstein and Michaelis suppose that it refers in a more re- 
stricted sense to circumcision, “in virtue of the circumcision in his 
body.” In the immediate context, however, the Apostle is showing, 
not the inefficacy of circumcision to secure the patriarch’s acceptance 
with God, but the inefficacy of his works in general. It is obvious, 
therefore, that for an explanation of xara oaexa, we must have re- 
course to the ἐξ ἔργων of v. 2. Not that we ought to follow Theodo- 
ret, and view xara oaexa as precisely equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων, which is 
not the case. ‘The Apostle rather considers πίστις, as in fact it is, an 
inward principle of life, and hence contemplates it in the aspect of a 
πνευματικὸν implanted by God, in contrast with which he views works, 
as but the product of the weak and enslaved moral powers of the 
natural man. Κατὰ oaexa is therefore to be looked upon as opposed 
to χατὰ πνεῦμα, and translated humanly, by his own moral en- 
deavours. Comp. the observ. upon Sdeé at chap. i. 8, 7. The in- 
terpretation of Calvin, who makes it naturaliter, and the identical one 
of Grotius, ‘ propriis viribus,’’ are therefore virtually correct. We 


* And he says, that not even he, viz. Abraham, who had performed such 
mighty acts of righteousness, was justified by works but by faith. 


118 CHAPTER IV. V. 2, 3. 


require only to notice, farther, an unnatural interpunctuation adopted 
by Grotius and Clericus, who place a point of interrogation after 
ἐροῦμεν and translate, ““ What shall we then say? ‘That Abraham has 
attained (justification) by his own endeavours?” 

V. 2. We here desiderate a proper answer to the question. The 
yae, however, indicates, as usual, a silent thought. See Fritzsche 
Comm. in Matt. ind. 5. ἢ. v. The οὐδοτιοῦν, which the sense re- 
quires, is suppressed. Abraham, it is true, had whereof to glory, but 
that only before men, who cannot try the heart, and even of the 
external conduct survey only an inconsiderable part: and his glory, 
however universally acknowledged, would avail him nothing so long 
as he did not stand justified in the eye of the omniscient God. A 
consideration, which is not indeed founded on a connection with 
these words, but which indicates, in a very beautiful manner, the 
difference between evangelical and legal righteousness, is brought 
forward by Cicumenius:...."Eyeu μὲν καύχημα; ἀλλ᾽ ob meds τὸν Θεὸν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ὡς κατωφθωχότι" 6 δὲ Ex πίστεως σωθεὶς, Entel μὴ ἔχευ εἰς 
ἑαυτὸν χαυχήσασθαυ, οὐδὲν yae teyor ἔπραξεν, εἰς τὸν Θεὸν χαυχαταυ" μεῦ- 
Gov δὲ τὸ εἰς Θεὸν καυχᾶσθαι, yee εἰς ἑαυτόν. Ta μὲν γὰρ χατορθώματα, 
πολλάκις καὶ ἀφανίζεταν ἑτέραις πλημμελείαις" ἡ δὲ εἰς Θεὸν χαύχήσις» 
ἄτρεπτος διαμένει.ἢ 

V. 8. Τί γὰρ ἡ γεαφὴ λέγει; A corroboration of what the Apostle 
has just declared, that God could by no means consider the character 
of Abraham as conformable to the law. ‘The yae must therefore be 
translated for. In proof of this, he now quotes Gen. xv. 6, verbatim 
from the LXX., excepting only that he substitutes a δὲ for a xav. 
The whole life of the patriarch displayed an extraordinary strength 
of faith. The first great manifestation of it was his unreserved com- 
pliance with the will of God in his departure from his native land 
and kindred. ‘The second was that recorded in the 15th chap. of 
Genesis, when he admits into his belief what, from the advanced 
years both of himself and his wife, appears to be an impossibility, 
even that Sarah should bear him a son, and that by means of that 
son, a blessing should be diffused not merely over Canaan, but over 
the whole earth. The third instance, in fine, in which he manifested 
his faith, was his willingly giving up, when required to do so by God, 
this very son of promise, on whom all his future prospects depended. 
Gen. xxii. On account of this persevering faith, Abraham is highly 
extolled even among the Jews. 1 Macc.ii.52. ᾿Αβεξαὰμ οὐχὶ ἐν πευ- 
ξασμῷ eveEOy πιστὸς: καὶ ἐλογύσθη αὐτῷ εἰς διχαιοσυνὴν; Philo de Abra- 
hamo, p. 386, ed. Frankf. ἔστι δὲ xai dvayearos ἔπαινος αὐτοῦ; xens- 


* He would have whereof to glory, not before God, indeed, but in himself, 
as having acted righteously. But the man who is saved by faith, being des-' 
titute of any ground for glorying in himself, seeing he has done nothing, glories 
in God. And it is better to glory in God than in ourselves. For our good 
deeds often disappear before our sins, whereas the glory that is in God re- 
mains for ever immutable. 


CHAPTER IV. V. d. 119 


mors μαφτυφηθεὶς ods Μωσῆς ἐθεσπίσθη, δὶ οὔ μηνύετοι ὅτι ἐπίστευσε τῷ 
Θεῷ. ὅπεξ λεχθήῆναν μὲν βαφύτατον ἐστὶ; tey@ δὲ βεβαιωθῆναν μέγιστον ..ἢ 
In the Jewish commentary of R. Ismael Mechilta, it is, in like 
manner, said of Abraham: De Abrahamo legimus, quod mundum 
hune et futurum non nisi ea de causa consecutus sit, quam quia in 
Deum credidit, quod dicitur, Gen. xv. 6. ‘The occasion upon which 
Abraham showed the faith that obtained for him the above testimony 
from God, was not indeed of so trying a nature as the offering up of 
Isaac, still it was a most heroic act of believing, and the extraordinary 
energy of mind required for it, is described by Paul himself, v. 18, 
19. ‘The common Jew looked only at the external act of Abraham. 
Paul proves that it is not that which constitutes its true worth, but 
the believing devotion of self to God, that laying hold of his promises, 
which is also the great characteristic of a Christian. Among the 
Jews, there are many who appreciate the high importance of religious 
faith, as an inward giving up of self to God. ‘To this purpose, 
Philo has various beautiful passages, De Abrahamo, p. 387. ‘* The 
one only sure and infallible good is faith, the faith that is fixed upon 
God; it is the consolation of life, the fulfilment of hope, the absence 
of evil, and the price of every blessing; it is the ignorance of misery, 
the knowledge of piety, and the inheritance of felicity; it is that 
which perfects every thing, depending as it does upon him who is 
the great first cause, who has power to do all things, but who wills 
only the best.’’ In the sequel, he styles faith, the queen of virtues. 
More especially, however, in his work, Quis rerum divinar. heres? 
Ρ. 493, ‘Abraham believed in God, and to have done so redounds to 
his praise. Some indeed may perhaps insinuate that there is nothing 
very commendable in that, and may ask, if any one, even the most 
unjust and impious of men, would not give heed to the words and 
promises of God. ‘To whom we reply, beware thou of inconsider- 
ately defrauding the wise man of his merited eulogium, of assigning 
faith, which is the most perfect of virtues, to the unworthy, or of 
casting reproach upon our knowledge of this subject. For if you 
please to search more deeply, and not keep to the mere surface of 
things, you will readily perceive, that to believe in God alone, and 
in nothing else besides, is by no means an easy matter. And what 
makes it hard is our relationship to the mortal body with which we 
are yoked, and which persuades us to believe in riches, and glory, 
and power, and friends, and health, and strength, and many other 
things. But to be weaned from all these, and to disbelieve a genera- 
tion which denies whatever lies beyond itself, and to believe in God 
only, who is the only true object of belief, is the act of a great and 
heavenly mind, elevated above the allurements of any thing here be- 


* And his praise has been recorded, being testified by the oracles which 
Moses delivered, by whom it is reported that he believed in God. And that 
this has been said of him is a great thing, but it is a far greater that it has 
been confirmed by acts. 


120 CHAPTER IV. V. 4. 


low. And well is it said, that faith was counted to him for righteous- 
ness, for there is nothing so righteous as to exercise a pure and un- 
mingled faith in God alone.”” In heathen antiquity, we find few 
traces of a recognition of the high importance of religious faith. 
There is a passage in Plutarch which has some reference to the sub- 
ject, Sept. Sap. Conv. c. 18. Speaking of Arion as he rode upon 
the dolphin’s back, he says that he was neither very much afraid of 
death, nor yet desirous to live, but longed to be saved, ὡς λάβου meee 
θεῶν δόξαν βέβαιον. In the heathen philosophy zvorvs and δόξα coin- 
cided. 

Δικαιοσύνη, in Hebrew ΠΡῸΣ, denotes here subjective holiness. God 
looked upon Abraham’s childlike submission as if it were real holi- 
ness, and attached value to it alone. Parallel is Ps. evi. 30,31. Deut. 
xxiv. 13; vi. 25, may likewise be compared, and for an exposition 
of the Old ‘Testament citation, Luther’s Auslegung des Genesis. 

V. 4. Paul here defines more precisely the substance and meaning 
of the above quotation. A doubt might arise, whether the words 
really implied that Abraham had not been able to attain by his works 
a perfect state of justification before God. Accordingly the Apostle 
shows, that the idea of ascribing faith as righteousness, implies the 
impossibility of the party otherwise having such a righteousness as 
God could accept. 

τῷ δὲ ἐφγαξομένῳ is best translated by Luther, ‘‘der mit Werken 
umgeht” and Beza: Is qui ex opere est aliquid promeritus. The 
great majority of expositors, however, take it in the emphatic sense 
of ‘‘acting faultlessly.” ‘Theodoret expounds it thus, ὃ γὰρ τῆς Sex ac 
οσύνης ἐξγάτης μισθὸν ἀπαυτεῖν and so also Limborch, Baumgarten, 
and Christ. Schmid, who deems it synonymous with ἐσγαδόμενος δυ- 
χαιοσύνην, Heb. xi. 33. The context might, it is true, impart this 
meaning to the word, but it is by no means probable that it does so. 
That man in general, and Abraham no less than others, is incapable 
of yielding a perfect obedience to the demands of the moral law, it is 
not the object of the Apostle here to show; what he asserts is, that 
in point of fact, Abraham’s works were not the ground of his justifi- 
cation. Grolius puts a false interpretation upon the whole clause: 
Sicut qui operam alicui prestat, non ideo amicus est illius, sed mer- 
cedem accipit oper respondentem, 516 etiam qui nativa vi, ut potest, 
Dei preceptis externis aliquo modo paret, habet mercedem, liberatur a 
suppliciis, sed non ideo fit amicus; Xaecs hic amicitiam significat. 
Calovius justly denominates these interpretations, ‘Strabe, plane 
alien a mente Apostoli.”’ 

ὋὉ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται xara χάριν. λογίξεσθαι is here either put, per 
meton. cause pro consequentia, for reckoning instead of paying, in 
which case, it might also be supplied to xara τὸ ὀφείλημα and xara ὁ 
χάριν would be entirely parallel with εἰς δικανοσύνην. Here the em- 
phasis lies solely upon yéew and ὀφείλημα, Whereas in verse 5, it lies, 
if not upon εἰς δικαιοσύνην, at least upon the whole clause λογίδεταυ 
αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Or, on the other hand, the xara yaew Is an eX- 


CHAPTER IV. V. 5. 121 


plicatory supplement to λογίξεταυν to which we must imagine it con- 
nected by a silent τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, and the xara τὸ ὀφεύλημα is united per 
zeugina with λογίζεται, upon which the whole emphasis rests, being 
considered by the Apostle as fully involving, and sufficiently express- 
ing the idea of what is undeserved. ‘This last is at once the weightier 
exposition, the more conformable to the usual diction of Paul, and is 
no less agreeable to the context than the others. It is expressed with 
great precision by Michaelis. “ΤῸ him who does works, the reward 
is not said to be reckoned, an expression which makes it appear as 
if it were given from grace, but he obtains it because it is his due.” 
Even in profane authors χάρις and ὀφείλημα stand opposed to each 
other. 

V.5. The counting of faith as righteousness, the Apostle here says, 
implies that Abraham had not the power of placing himself in any 
other way in a state of justification. He now transfers the analogy 
furnished by the case of Abraham to the domain of Christianity, show- 
ing how the term λογίζεσθαι, as used in reference to the patriarch, 
designates precisely the relation in which the sinner who is justified 
through the redemption of Christ, stands to the Divine justice. ‘That 
we must here suppose a transition from the example of Abraham to 
the case of the Christian, who believes in God’s justification through 
Christ, is clear from the expression πυσϑεύοντυ ἐπὶ τὸν διχαιοῦντα τὸν 
ἀσεβῆ. seeing, that in that particular act, which the Apostle has men- 
tioned, the object of the patriarch’s belief was by no means the justi- 
fying grace of God. ‘This remark is made by Sebastian Schmidt, 
Baumgarten, and Chr. Schmid. On the other hand, the commenta- 
tors who think these words have a special reference to Abraham, 
either call the attention, like Beza, to the fact, that even Abraham 
might be characterized as ἀσεβὴς» in so far as he did not yield a per- 
fect obedience to the moral law—which observation is certainly just 
in itself, but does not do away with the difficulty, that in the instance 
alluded to it cannot be Abraham’s faith in the pardoning grace of 
God, which is here spoken of; or like Michaelis, Rosenmiiller and 
Koppe, they follow Grotius and Wetstein in taking up ἀσεβὴς in the 
sense of idolater, and supposing that it referred to the patriarch’s 
having been once addicted, like his father 'Terah, Josh. xxiv. 2, to 
idol worship, according to the tradition of the Rabbins Mirchand, 
Philo, and Josephus, which interpretation is peculiarly unnatural. 
Guarding against the abuse of this passage, Calvin says: Neque enim 
fideles vult esse ignavos, sed tantum mercenarios esse vetat qui a Deo 
quidquam reposcant quasi jure debitum. Et jam prius admonuimus 
non hic disseri, qualiter vitam instituere nos oporteat, sed queri de 
salutis causa. We have only farther to add, that the Vulgate, and 
several Latin Fathers, append to the verse, Secundum propositum 
gratiz Dei, which, however, is wanting in the Greek Codices. 

16 


122 CHAPTER Iv. V. 6, 7, 8. 


ΡᾺ ΤΟΙΣ ΤΊ. 


PROOF THAT DAVID WAS JUSTIFIED BY FREE GRACE. v. 6—8. 


Tue Apostle now appeals to another most distinguished forefather 
of the Jews, even David, and shows how he had not boasted of his 
merits, nor claimed from God any recompense as his due, but, on 
the contrary, had extolled God’s pardoning mercy. In respect of 
the form, this second Old ‘Testament instance of righteousness by faith 
is not, as Seb. Schmidt accurately observes, co-ordinate with that of 
Abraham. For although, in respect of the sense, there is such a 60- 
ordination, still the sentence is only appended as a voucher for the 
meaning given to λογίζεσθαι in verse 5. ‘The transition is as follows: 
ἐς That the idea of justification, which I express by λογίζεσθαυν 15 cor- 
rect, will be apparent from the fact, that- David in the Psalms extols 
the same kind of justification, and when he speaks of the ground of 
his acceptance with God, passes over in silence his sin-stained 
works.”’ In this view, Chrysostom justly observes, it would be 
more appropriate if the words of the Apostle were paxdevos ᾧ ἐλογίσθη 
εἰς δικαιοσύνην. ‘Che quotation is made from Psalm xxxii. 1, 2, verba- 
tim after the LXX. According to the opinion of commentators, this 
Psalm was composed after David’s transgression with Bathsheba. It 
was consequently very well adapted to the purpose of Si. Paul; for 
at that time, it must have been very natural for the fallen king to look 
entirely away from himself, and appeal only to the Divine mercy. 

Maxaecopos, attribution of blessedness; hence réyeu τὸν μακαφισμὸν 
is equivalent to paxaevGre τὸν dvOeunorv. Χωρὶς teyav. Zeya here is the 
same as ἔργα νόμου, an additional proof that the latter means works 
of the moral law. 

V.7 and 8. ἀφίεναι to put away, and ἐπιχαλύπτειν to cover, are, 
like the two corresponding Hebrew words sw and N02, synonymous 
metaphorical expressions for the forgiveness of sins. ‘Theodoret in 
Psal. a. ἢ. 1.: τοσαύτῃ yae meds αὐτοὺς xixenrar φιλοτιμίᾳ, ὡς ov μόνον 
ἀφίεναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαλύψαυ τὰς ἁμαφτίας καὶ μηδὲ ἔχνη τούτων καταλιπεῖν. ἢ 

Λογίζεσθαν to place to account, a figurative word, which, in like 
manner as fo retain is used with respect to sin. Job employs an 
expression implying even a stronger figure, ch. xiv. 17. 


* Such generosity does he exercise towards them, as not only to forgive, 
but even to cover their sins, so that not even the traces of them are left. 


CHAPTER Iv. ν. 9, 10. 123 


ΡΑΝΤ ΤΙ. 


PROOF THAT THE SIGN OF THE THEOCRATICAL COVENANT, CIRCUMCI- 
SION, HAD NO EFFICACY IN THE JUSTIFICATION OF ABRAHAM.  IN- 
STEAD OF BEING A PROCURING CAUSE, IT WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF 
Ir. v. 9—12. 


V.9. SEvERAL modern expositors, and among others, Chr. Schmid 
and Koppe, connect these words closely with the preceding context, 
supposing that the Apostle suddenly starts aside, and, instead of wait- 
ing the opponent’s answer, hastens to resume the former theme of 
Abraham. ‘This, however, is a wrong view of the course of the 
ideas. It is more correct, as Theophylact, amongst others, has 
shown, to suppose, that at the commencement of the 9th verse, a new 
point of the inquiry is taken up. ‘The Apostle has been hitherto 
demonstrating, that in the case of the holiest men of the Old Testa- 
ment, the ground of justification was not the fulfilment of the law, 
but the free grace of God. ‘That the Israelite might have granted, 
but he would have restricted the principle to the members of the the- 
ocracy. In opposition to which, Paul now shows that this kind of 
justification took effect upon Abraham, on the one hand, before he 
had received the sign of the theocracy, and on the other before the 
promulgation of the law, in which respect the patriarch appears to 
stand perfectly on a level with every Gentile. Ὃ μακαξισμὸς οὖν ob ros, 
according to the view of the train of thought which we have adopted, 
we must interpret as follows: ‘ Does this counting one’s self blessed, 
on account of the free grace of God, belong only to the Theocrat?”’ 
The verb to be supplied is, as suggested by Theophylact, acarev, but 
better perhaps ἔστι. The χαὺ before ἐπὶ τὴν dxeosvoriay is a sign that 
the sense requires us to conceive a μόνον introduced after ἐπὸὺ τὴν περυ- 
τομήν. It is, therefore, false in Gicumenius and 'Theophylact so to 
state the question of Paul, as if he ascribed to the heathen a greater 
right to the μακχαξισμὸς than to the Jew. Λέγομεν γὰρ. The yae links 
the new argumentation to the previous concessions. The Apostle 
supposes the Jew to have allowed that Abraham was pronounced just 
without a regard to works. It would unquestionably be more correct 
to include this clause in verse 10th, with which it is so closely con- 
nected, and with which it must be combined to make a whole. 

V. 10. The Apostle might have confuted this new and exclusive 
restriction of the Jews, by urging what he had already brought for- 
ward at the commencement of the 8d chapter, viz. that God had im- 
parted circumcision to the members of the theocracy, as a gift of free 
grace, and that, hence, it could only possess that degree of value in 


124 CHAPTER Iv. V. 1]. 


the eyes of God, which he in the counsels of his free-will chose to 
attribute to it. ‘The history of Abraham, however, afforded him an 
opportunity of employing a still more triumphant argument against 
them. ‘The declaration of God, wherein he justified Abraham for 
the sake of his faith, was made, if not twenty-five, at the least fifteen 
years anterior to the introduction of circumcision, Gen. xvii. 23. 
When the patriarch received it, he did not, of course, as yet belong 
to the theocracy. Πῶς here signifies, under what circumstances? 

V.11. The Apostle strengthens the proof. Not only, he main- 
tains, is circumcision, as the sign of the covenant, not the condition 
of justification by free grace, it is nothing more than a consequence 
of it. Chrysostom: Οὐχ ὑστέξα δὲ μόνον (πεξιτομὴ) τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ σφόδεα αὐτῆς καταδεεστέφα. καὶ τοσοῦτον ὅσον σήμεῖον τοῦ πράγματος 
οὗπεξ ἔστι σημεῖον. AS iscommon with our author, he here restricts 
the facts of the Old ‘Testament more than is done in the Old Testa- 
ment itself, by giving prominence to the essential point. The sign 
of the covenant was not really conferred upon the patriarch in conse- 
quence of that great act of faith, but for his general childlike aequi- 
escence in the plans and purposes of the free grace of God. As, how- 
ever, that act of faith was a particularly distinguished instance of his 
submissive compliance with the Divine economy, the Apostle was 
justified in representing the covenant sign as a consequence of justi- 
fication by faith. We have to observe, in the first place, with respect 
to the text, that several of the Greek fathers read περιτομὴν in the 
accusative. ‘The genitive, however, is preferable, and the accusative 
has been substituted in its room only because of its infrequency. It 
is the genitivus appositionis, similar to the Latin flos viole, and re- 
quires to be resolved into ἡ πεξφυτομὴ ἡ ἔστι σημεῖον. In precisely the 
same manner, the Rabbins are accustomed to connect nD circum- 
cision, as the genitivus appositionis with MIs a sign, ἃηἀ ΤΡ a 
seal, 

Speayis Means τὸ δαχτύλιος. rarely δαχτυλίον ONIN, τὰ σημεῖα τῶν 
δακχτυλίων, and τὸ ἐχμαγετίον τῶν σημείων. Here it signifies the latter. 
An impressed seal is the sign of the strongest confirmation, and 
hence in the New ‘Testament opeayis is frequently used in the sense 
of BeBatwors, 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2'Tim. ii. 19, and by the fathers, baptism is 
styled ἡ ἀθανατοποιὸς xav σωτήξιος opeayes. (Grabe Spicil. Patr. tom. 
i. p. 332.) ‘The Sabeans likewise call it the seal of life. With re- 
spect to the thing itself, circumcision was but the sign of reception 
into the theocracy. As Philo says, (De Opif. Mundi, p. 36.) τὰ aio- 
θητὰ σημεῖα εἶναν σύμβολα τῷν νοητῶν. In that light it was regarded 
by the Jews, (See Schiéttgen and Wetstein.) ‘They denominate it 
in Jalkut Rubeni, f. 65, 4, the sign of the covenant, and in the Chal- 
dee Paraphrase to the Song of Solomon, ‘‘ the seal of cireumcision Ὁ 
which strengthens like swords those who bear it.”’ It is also called 


* Not merely is circumcision posterior to faith, but even far inferior, as 
much so indeed as the sign to the thing signified. 


CHAPTER Iv. v. 11. 125 


the seal of Abraham and the holy sign. (Comp. Liber Cosri, ed. 
Buxt. p. 1. 6. 115.) In this view, therefore, the Israelite could not 
but grant the truth of what the Apostle said, and just as little was he 
able to contradict him, when he made the covenant sign dependent 
upon the earlier act of faith. Long before Abraham had shown him- 
self worthy of it, God opened the way for him to become the founder 
of a blessed family upon the earth. With childlike obedience, the 
patriarch followed the heavenly intimations, and in faith laid hold of 
the promises. ‘This simple and submissive acceptance on his part 
of the offered grace of God, now became the cause of God’s actually 
imparting to him that covenant sign, and thereby constituting him, 
in fact, the author of a Divine commonwealth, at first comprehending 
only a single family, which soon, however, extended to a nation, 
until finally, at the appearance of Christ, it spread over the whole 
human race. Eis τὸ etvar, is a copy of the Hebrew method of join- 
ing 5 to the infinitive, and stands for χαὶ οὕτως byéveto. Πιστενόντες 
δὺ axeoBvorias. On the use of διὰ like the Hebrew 3, to signify with 
and in, see chap. ii. v. 27. It is here to be resolved into xavmee dx- 
ἐόβυστοι ὄντες. 

Πατέξα τῶν πιστευόντων δὶ αχξοβυστίας. The word father is figu- 
ratively used by eastern nations to denote the most multifarious rela- 
tions. ‘The most common is the general one of dependence. In the 
present case it is to be taken in the sense of author or founder. 
Comp. Job xxxviii. 28; Gen. iv. 21; 1 Mace. il. 54. Φινεὲς ὃ πατὴξ 
ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ δηλῶσαι ζῆλον, John vill. 44. Carpzovius: exemplar. 
Schleusner prefers the meaning, antesignanus. ‘The two, however, 
are virtually identical. Abraham, as the first of those who received 
justification in this way, leads the train of all who in the same way 
receive it after him. ‘There is a similar passage in the dictionary 
Michlal Jophi upon Mal. ii. ‘Abraham is the father of all those who 
follow him in faith.” The word father is used in the same sense by 
Maimon. Opp. Poc. 1. p. 63. ‘* Moses is the father of all succeed- 
ing prophets.” 

The εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναν Expresses more distinctly in what this pater- 
nity consists, viz. that as children partake the nature of their father, 
so may all the heathen appropriate to themselves the privileges 
which were enjoyed by him, who by his childlike faith founded the 
kingdom of justification by free grace. Theodoret, pushing the com- 
parison too far, has the following words: ‘O yae τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς; πδοευ- 
δὼς ὡς Θεὸς» καὶ ὡς ἕνα λαὸν ἐξ ἐθνῶν χαὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀθροίσει; καὶ διὰ πίστεως 
αὐτοῖς τὴν σωτηξίαν παρέξει, ἐν τῷ ἸΤατριάρχῃ 'ABeadu ἀμφότεξα προδίε- 
γέαψε. Δείξας yae αὐτὸν, καὶ πρὸ τῆς περιτομῆς τὴν ἐκ πίστεως δικαιο- 
σύνην κτησάμενον, AL μετὰ τὴν πεφιτόμὴν, οὐ κατὰ τὸν Μωσαϊχὸν πολι- 
τευσάμενον νόμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιμείναντα τῇ τῆς πίστεως ποδηγίᾳ, πατέρα τῶν 
ἐθνῶν αὐτὸν προσηγόξευσεν. ἢ 


* He who is the God of all, foreseeing, as God, that he would gather one 
people from among Jews and Gentiles, and impart to them salvation through 


126 CHAPTER IV. v. 12. 


V. 12. What the Apostle here meant to say is, that the members 
of the Israelitish theocracy are as little excluded from justification by 
the fact of Abraham’s having received the righteousness of faith when 
he did not as yet belong toit. All, however, depends upon their choos- 
ing to take the same way to it as Abraham did. CEcumenius: Ὥσπες 
γὰφ οἱ ἐν ἀχροβυστίᾳ; οὐ διὰ τοῦτο μόνον σχοῖεν ἂν τὸν ABendu πατέρα; διὰ 
τὸ ἐν axeoBvoria αὐτὸν πεπιστευκέναι, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὴν πιστιν μιμήσαιντο» 
οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ ἐν πεφυτομῇ σχήσουσι, οὐ Sid τὸ μόνον περιτμηθήναυ τὸν 
Αβεαὰμ; ξὰν μὴ καὶ τὴν πίστιν αὐτοῦ μιμήσωνταιυΐ 

The dative τοὺς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον is put according to the ana- 
logy of the Hebrew, instead of the genitive τῶν. The genitive, in 
that language, being often expressed by Ὁ. There is a twofold way 
of understanding the meaning and scope of these words, for each of 
which weighty arguments may be alleged. ‘The Syrian interpreter, 
and the Vulgate find here, not as we do, an antithesis between exclu- 
sive self-righteous Jews and subjects of justification by faith, but 
between Jews and Gentiles. And the same opinion is adopted by 
Theodoret, Anselm, Castalio, Grotius, and Koppe. ‘These exposi- 
tors regard τοὺς οὐκ éx πεξιτομῆς μόνον as an inversion for οὐ τοῖς ἐκ 
περιτομῆς μόνον, Of which latter collocation we have an instance in 
verse 16th. As exemplifications of this harsh construction, Castalio 
appeals to 1 Thessalonians i. 8, 2 Tim. ii. 6, and Koppe quotes the 
present passage in support of his unnatural explanation of ἐκ φύσεως, 
Rom. ii. 27. But not one of the three passages furnishes sufficient 
authority for so violent an inversion, as these expositors propose. It 
is true, that partly the xac before τοῖς standing in immediate connec- 
tion with ἀλλὰ, and more especially the repetition of the article before 
orovzovet, Speak in their favour. ‘This last reason, however, is not 
enough to countervail the harshness of the inversion, and the reasons 
for the opposite exposition which we have adopted. In favour of 
that may be urged, that it would be totally superfluous to repeat what 
had been said in the 11th verse touching the justification of the Jews: 
Moreover, that, according to the other interpretation, the waréea περι- 
τομῆς», Without any further addition, would be quite destructive of the 
sense. It would only refer, as Koppe makes it refer, to the lineal 
descent of the Israelites, which is here quite contrary to the train of 
thought. In fine, it is also confirmatory of our explanation, that if 
Abraham is here stated to be the father of the subjects of the theo- 


faith, prefigured both in the person of the Patriarch Abraham. For having 
shown, that even prior to circumcision, he possessed the righteousness which 
is through faith, and subsequent to his circumcision, that he was not subject 
to the Mosaic law, but continued under the discipline of faith, he calls him 
the Father of nations. : 

* For as those in uncircumcision have not Abraham for their father, for 
the sole reason, that he believed in an uncircumcised state, unless they are 
also imitators of his faith; so neither, without this condition, shall they of the 
circumcision have him for their father, from the mere circumstance of his 
having been circumcised. 


CHAPTER Iv. v. 13. 127 


cracy, some sort of limitation, like that which the Apostle makes, 
appears indispensably necessary. ‘This view has accordingly been 
adopted by Chrysostom, Ambrosius, (who had the Latin translation 
before his eyes,) Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Carpsovius and others. 
᾿Αλλὰ χαὺ We must translate but rather, and not but also, καὶ having 
often this intensifying power. Τοῖς στοιχοῦσυ τοὺς ἰχνεσι. ‘The repe- 
tition of the article is to be considered a solecism. Στοιχεὺν Means 
to follow. 


ῬΑ Gory. 


PROOF OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THEOCRACY WITHOUT THE 
CO-OPERATION OF, WHAT WAS ITS CHIEF PILLAR, THE LAW. _ IN- 
STEAD OF THE LAW HAVING FOUNDED THE THEOCRACY, THEY WERE 
BOTH THE OFFSPRING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. v. 13—18. 


Besipes the covenant sign of circumcision, their having received the 
law operated as another cause to lead Israel into the error of ima- 
gining the privilege of an interest in divine mercy, inherent in their 
mere position, whereas that could only acquire value, when connected 
with suitable dispositions. Even the distinction of possessing the 
law belonged not to Abraham, at the pericd when God gave him the 
great promises. Paul, accordingly, now demonstrates from the in- 
stance of the patriarch, that the possession of the law contributed 
nothing to the establishment of the prerogatives of the theocracy, but 
that no less in the case of the law, than in that of circumcision, it is 
clearly evinced, that the theocracy of which the Jew made his boast, 
far from rendering the righteousness of faith superfluous, was founded 
and reposed upon no other basis than free grace on the part of God, 
and a cheerful and childlike faith, accepting it on the part of man. 
That this faith, whose character is to think humbly of self, insures 
the fulfilment of the promises, is declared by the ‘Talmud itself, ‘Ty. 
Berachoth, fol. 63,1, where it is written, ‘*‘ The promises of the law 
pass into accomplishment, only in the instance of him who looks 
upon himself \3°sw 192 as if he were nothing.”’ ‘The fourth head ‘of 
St. Paul’s demonstration does not, in the manner in which itis stated, 
correspond entirely with the third. In order to make it thus coin- 
cide, he would have required to say, ‘In like manner, as ecircum- 
cision was imparted for the sake of the righteousness by faith, so also 
were the law, and all the concomitant theocratical distinctions given 
to Israel on account of the faith and consequent justification of the 
patriarch, and were far from having been conditional upon the fulfill- 
ing of the law.”” Paul did not, however, choose to state his propo- 


128 CHAPTER Iv. v. 13. 


sition in this manner; because the law had not, like circumcision, 
been bestowed immediately upon Abraham. As the reward of his 
faith and confidence, he had received the ἐπαγγελία that in his seed 
should all the nations of the earth be blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. In this 
promise was contained the germ of the theocracy, which in time 
gradually unfolded itself, first in weakness under the Old Testament, 
but subsequently in perfection under the New. Hence virtually the 
same parallelism still lies in the words before us. 

V. 13. This new argument the Apostle links to the preceding, 
simply by yae, which with the οὐ must be translated ** neque porro.”’ 
Or we may also suppose, with Gicumenius, that in point of form it 
is brought forward, as a farther corroboration of his former proposi- 
tion, 7. 6. that by a conclusion a majori ad minus, he still more 
firmly establishes the doctrine, that circumcision has no justifying 
efficacy. 

ἡ ἐπαγγελία, TO κληφονόμον αὐτὸν eivar Tov χύσμον. Kaneovduos equi- 
valent to xvevos signifies @ proprietor, xaneovowery δόξαν, φήμην; are 
common Greek phrases implying possession. So also in Hebrew 
ΤῊ 212 the property. ‘There is no promise to be found in the Old 
Testament expressed in these words. ‘The quotations of Jews, how- 
ever, were not always literally exact. (See Surenhusius in Βίβλιῳ 
καταλλαγῆς 6. 2. De modis allegandi, Thes. v.) Sometimes they 
extend the meaning by additions made from parallel passages. Many 
commentators deem that the Apostle has before his eyes, Gen. xv. 7, 
where it is said, that to Abraham shall be given TAWA) ANI PRN, 
this land to inherit it. Now if such be the case, Paul must have 
seen more in the promise than the mere inheritance of the terrestrial 
Canaan; for in the 16th verse we find he speaks of that promise as 
extending also to believing Christians from among the heathen. And 
it is a very obvious conjecture, that he interpreted the words typi- 
cally, and considered the possession of Palestine as a figure of the 
possession of the spiritual kingdom of God. ‘There are analogous 
instances of Canaan being taken in this figurative sense, Heb. iv. and 
so likewise Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 2. Κόσμος would then stand for 
κόσμος μέλλων, αἰὼν μέλλων. According to a similar typical view, 
Philo wrote his book, ‘O τῶν θείων πεαγμάτων xajneovouos. ‘This way 
of understanding the words has been followed by Brent, Chr. Schmid, 
and Carpzov. It is, however, difficult to see, how χόσμος can stand 
immediately for χόσμος wéarwy* and immediately it does not admit of 
a spiritual sense. It would hence no more serve for a spiritual expo- 
sition than for a proper translation of ΠΟΤ ax. One would rather 
be disposed to conclude with Gicumenius, that χληδονομεῖν τὸν κόσμον 
is a form of expression, which, in the course of time, lost its original 
signification, and came at length to signfy, generally, the enjoyment ᾿ 
of welfare and blessing, as Matt. v.5. comp. with Ps. xxv. 13, par- 
ticularly Ps. xxxvii. 9; Prov. ii. 20,21. ‘The best way, however, 
might be to take χόσμος, as signifying all the nations of the earth, 
and then to consider the promises intended to be, such as Gen, xxii. 


CHAPTER Iv. v. 13, 14. 129 


17,18. The prophets often foretell the taking possession wy, of 
foreign nations, at the time of the Messiah. In that was implied their 
reception into the theocracy, and hence, indirectly, their participation 
in the kingdom of the Messiah; so that the promise before us, that 
Abraham with his race should fill the whole earth, is viewed by St. 
Paul as including the prospect of all mankind becoming subjects of 
the Messiah’s kingdom. ‘This is also precisely the meaning of the 
17th verse. The passage in Philo, Quis rerum divin. heres? p. 520, 
may be compared, where he calls Abraham, Ἡ γεμόνα ἔθνους xox γένους 
ἑτέρον μέλλοντα. Also among the Rabbins, Maim. T'r. Bikkurim, c. 
4, § 1, where it is said, ‘‘'The proselyte presents his firstlings, and 
confesses (his faith on one God) as it stands written of Abraham, J 
have made thee a father of many nations, Gen. xvii. 5. Lo he is 
the father of all the earth.”’ Mechilta upon Exod. xiv. ‘ Our father 
Abraham possesses the world that now is and that which is to come, 
by faith alone.” Gen. xv. 6. Philo uses a similar expression in 
reference to Moses, De vita Mosis, p. 626, ed. Frankf. xowwwvov yae 
ἀξιώσας ὃ θεὸς ἀναφανῆναι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ λήξεως, ἀνῆχε πάντα τὸν κόσμον ὡς 
χληξονόμῳ κτῆσιν ἁδμόζουσαν.ἢ 

Ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. In the promises made to Abraham, his 
posterity were also included. This it entered into the design of Paul, 
to bring prominently into view, as it showed, in the clearest manner, 
how the theocratical privileges, in which the Jews so proudly gloried, 
rested entirely upon the faith of Abraham, and fell at once from their 
hands the moment they wished to make them depend upon the 
law. 

dud δικαιοσύνης πίστεως. ‘The promises of blessing were made to 
Abraham, at first under the condition of his childlike compliance with 
all the purposes of God, with respect to him, Gen. xii. 2, 3. Accord- 
ingly, after having in all things manifested perfect fidelity to God, he 
obtained the seal of the covenant, was set apart for the founder of the 
theocracy, and, in consideration of his former cheerful faith, those 
numerous promises, before exhibited only from afar, were confirmed 
to him, Gen. xvii. 5. At length the third great and most severe trial 
of his faith was made, in which the aged patriarch having stood firm, 
the promises were once more repeated, and with a still richer en- 
largement, xxii. 18. 

V. 14. Abraham received the promise in consequence of his child- 
like faith, and for us also its significance depends upon our believing. 
If it were only upon the ground of a fulfilment of the demands of the 
religious and moral law, that God imparts grace, then does religious 
faith, that noblest act of the human spirit, lose its value, and the 
promise made to Abraham, of one day obtaining a participation in 
the glorious kingdom of God, is made of none effect, and cannot be 
fulfilled. So Calvin, Beza, and Limborch. 


* For God thinking fit to make apparent the commonness of his inherit- 
ance, has left the whole world as a suitable property to an heir. 
17 


130 CHAPTER Iv. v. 15, 16, 17. 


ot ἐκ νόμον is exactly parallel with οἱ ἐξ ἔργων, Gal. iii. 10, to which, 
in the foregoing verse, οἱ 2x πίστεως is there placed in opposition. 
The meaning is those who trust to their works, and those who trust 
to faith. 'Theod.: οἱ κατὰ νόμον πολιτευσάμενοι. 

χεχένωται ἡ πίστις. "This verb is used by the LXX. as the trans- 
lation of S5nox, Jer. xiv. 2. to lose power or value. Se 1 Cor. 17, 
according to which the sense of the present passage is, ‘* Religious 
faith is made insignificant.” Christ. Schmid: Fidei vis tollitur. 

xaraeyéw in the LXX. is put for 902 to hinder or prevent. Cicu- 
MENLUS: at ἐπαγγελίαν dyenoror καὶ ἀτέλεστοι γεγένηνται. ‘The prophecy 
made to Abraham cannot be carried into accomplishment, if the con- 
dition of its accomplishment is our fulfilling the law. ‘Thomas Aqui- 
nas: Si aliqua promissio sit implenda per id quod impletionem pro- 
missionis impedit, talis promissio aboletur, enimvero lex impedit 
consecutionem hereditatis. 

V. 15. The idea of law, and the idea of penal justice are eorrela- 
tive, because it is impossible to conceive of man, except as a trans- 
gressor. In another train of thought, chap. vii. 7, Paul expands this 
thought. Calvin: Ea est nature nostre vitiositas: Quo magis doce- 
mur quid rectum sit ac justum, eo apertius nostra iniquitas detegitur, 
maximeque contumacia, atque hoc modo gravius Dei judicium accer- 
situr. 

V.16. If God’s promise of receiving the true posterity of the 
Patriarch into his kingdom is to remain sure, its certainty must be 
founded upon his own free grace, and not upon so doubtful a thing 
as man’s obedience to the law. Seeing, however, that grace, and 
the manifestation of it, that is, the operation of the Divine Spirit upon 
the heart of man, on the one hand, and a believing susceptibility for 
its reception, upon the other, are co-relative, it follows, that if God 
justifies us by free grace, our justification necessarily rests upon the 
ground of a believing acquiescence or appropriation upon our parts. 

To διὰ τοῦτο we may supply, from verse 13 and 14, χληξονόμον 
γινόμεθα. One might be here tempted to understand the οὐ τῷ x τοῦ 
νόμου μόνον κτλ. in the same sense with the τοῖς οὐχ ἐκ περιτομῆς Of 
the 12th verse, in order to introduce an accordance between the two 
expressions. ‘This, however, is by no means necessary. ΤῸ 
displace the οὐ in the present, would be no less violent than in 
that former instance. Accordingly, we regard the words τῷ 
ix πίστεως "ABeadu, as designing the heathen; and this opinion is 
corroborated by παντὺ τῷ oxéeuarc, Which obviously leads us to ex- 
pect a subsequent μερισμὸς, and still more, by the final clause ὅς tore 
πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν, by which the Apostle intimates, that although he 
had before denominated Abraham, more especially, the Father of the 
Jews, still the heathen might also participate in that privilege. 

V.17. The passage from Gen. xvii. 5, is quoted verbatim from 
the LXX. It ought rightly to be joined to the previous verse. 
Τυθέναυ in the Hellenistic dialect, answers to the Hebrew {ni, to con- 
stitute. ‘The promise as it stands, refers solely to the numerous 


CHAPTER Iv. v. 17. 131 


bodily progeny of the Patriarch. In so far, however, as his bodily 
progeny founded the theocracy, and were subservient to the recep- 
tion of all the nations of the earth into the covenant originally made 
with Abraham, Paul had good ground to say, that that promise, even 
in a higher sense, had met its accomplishment. 

xavévarte ov ἐπίστευσε Θεοῦ. "These words are particularly difficult 
to be understood. Hence, probably the variations in translation 
among the ancients. ‘The Syrian and Arabian versions, besides two 
codices, read ἐπίστευσας, which is what Luther also translates, con- 
necting the words with the preceding address of God to Abraham. 
Ambrose, on the contrary, expounds as follows: Ut unum Deum 
omnium doceat, alloquitur gentiles, Abraham ipsi Deo credidisse, et 
justificatum esse ante eum in quem et gentes credunt. This reading 
and translation, however, is unfounded. If, then, we keep to the 
common reading, still the sense may be determined very variously. 
With respect to the construction, it will be found necessary to sup- 
pose an attraction and rhetorical transposition, which must be resolved 
into χατέναντυ τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίστευσε. See upon such forms of syntax, 
Herman zu Viger, 5. 891. Winer Gramm. des N. Test. 5 50. The 
meaning of the expression is thus given by Theodoret: donee πάντων 
Este ποιητὴς ὃ Θεὸς, καὺ πάντων Θεός τε χαὺ κηδεμών οὕτω καὶ τὸν 
᾿Αβεαὰμ πατέρα πάντων κεχειροτόνηκεν. ἢ So also Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact, Erasmus and Brentius, who take χατέναντο in the sense of 
καθ᾽ ὁμοίωμα OF ὁμοίως. In this sense it may be found in the Old, 
but nowhere in the New Testament. It would give to the passage 
the following meaning: ‘Abraham should be the founder of a mul- 
titude of nations, just as the Almighty God, upon whom he believed, 
was the author of numerous beings, and also raises the dead. Leaving 
out of view, however, that this import of xazévaze has not been suf- 
ficiently proved, it must be obvious, that that statement would be 
here superfluous and moreover unsuitable. ‘To prove such a simi- 
larity between Abraham and God would be highly affected. Seb. 
Schmid proposes to give another sense to χατέναντυ respectu ad, 
according to which the meaning would be, ‘‘as regards the object of 
our faith, we are Abraham’s children; his faith and ours were fixed 
upon the same being.’’ But neither does this meaning answer, and 
such a use of χατέναντι is undemonstrated. ‘The attempts of Grotius 
and Herzog to explain it are also violent. ‘They separate by a point 
of interrogation, placed by the one after ἐπίστευσε by the other after 
ob, the χατέναντι ov from what follows, and it is thus that the former 
translates, “Ἅ Before whom did Abraham believe? Answer; before 
God.” Augustine, Cornelius ἃ Lapide and Bengel, join the κατέναντι 
οὔ With the citation from Gen. xvii. 5, and make the sense, “1 have 
made thee a father of many nations in the sight of God, because to 
the eye of man they did not as yet exist.”” Others give different ex- 


* As God is the maker of all, and the God and guardian of all, so has he 
appointed Abraham the Father of all. 


132 CHAPTER Iv. ν. 17. 


planations, But itis at once most agreeable to the language and 
meaning, to take χατέναντι here in the sense ‘*‘ according to the judg- 
ment or design of God,”’ as in the Hebrew *3y'3 and among the later 
Jews, 395. So Origen, Cocceius, Beausobre, De Wette. The 
purpose of appending the clause unquestionably was to intimate, that 
God already foresaw the many that were one day to follow Abraham 
upon the path of believing submission, and thereby be numbered 
among his people. It is to this, accordingly, that the epithet con- 
ferred upon God refers. He who has power to call the dead from 
their graves, and to whom that which is not is as if it were, could 
even then perceive the whole race of believers, who were destined 
to unite themselves with Abraham, and in this view denominate the 
Patriarch a father of many nations. Others contend that Paul be- 
stows the epithet in question from an anticipation of what he was 
about to say in verses 18 and 19. ‘They, therefore, either consider 
the vexeou. here as equivalent to νενεκρωμένος, Heb. xi. 12, comp. with 
Rom. iv. 19; so Theophylact, Grotius, Christ. Schmid and Beza. 
Or they imagine, that Paul ascribes faith to Abraham, in reference to 
the future offering up of Isaac. Even if, at the Divine command, he 
had completed the sacrifice, God could still have easily recalled the 
victim from the dead. So Erasmus. According to the former view, 
CEcumenius observes: ὁ γὰς τοὺς νεκροὺς ζωοποιὼν, καὶ τὰ μὴ ὄντα οὐ- 
σιῶν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον δυνήσεταυ τῷ νενεχξωμένῷ διὼ τὸ γῆἥξας σώματι δοῦναι 
σπέρμα ζωογόνον. 

καὶ χαλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. There is difficulty in the con- 
struction of these words. The simplest way is to take ὡς as ἃ com- 
parative particle, and to expound, ‘* With God existence and non-ex- 
istence are the same; when he commands, the latter must obey him 
no less than the former.” In precise uniformity with this view, the 
Vulgate translates: vocat que non sunt, tanquam ea que sunt. Beza: 
apud quem jam sunt, que alioqui re ipsa non sunt. It has been de- 
fended among moderns by Chr. Schmidt, Lisner, and Koppe. We 
might then compare the passage from Philo: (De Josepho, p. 544.) 
Ἔν ταῖς χαθ᾽ ὕπνον φαντασίαις, βλέποντες οὐ BAdMOEMEY, τῆς διανοίας ἄνα- 
yeapovons καὶ εἰδολοποιούσης τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. Likewise from the 
same author: (in Flace. p. 988,) χατ᾽ dvae εἶδον πλάσματα ψυχῆς ὕσως 
dvayeapovens τὰ μὴ ὑπάξχοντα ὡς ὄντα." ‘This sense, however, ap- 
pears to want simplicity. Now it suggests itself at once to suppose 
that ὡς ὄντα stands for εἰς τὸ εἶναι; for the expression xarsiy OF maed- 
yew τὰ μὴ ὄντᾳ εἰς τὸ εἶναυ 15 exceedingly common, (See Lisner, a. ἢ. 
1.) no less in classical, than in Philo, and Ecclesiastical authors. 
Epiphanius: (Heres. t. iii. p. 267.) Ὑειὰς ἁγία ἐξ ἧς τὰ πάντα καλῶς 
ἐχτισμένα----ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων xexdnuéva εἰς τὸ εἶναι. Lucian: (Philop. ec. 
11.) ἄνθρωπον ἐκ μὴ ὅντων εἰς τὸ εἶναν παξήγαγε. Philo: (de vita Μο-’ 
sis, 1. 3. p. 693.) Ex τοὺ μὴ ὄντος εἰς TO εἴναν TO τελειόφατον ἔφγον τὸν 


* In our dreaming fancies, seeing we do not see, the mind describing and 
imagining things that are not as though they were. 


CHAPTER Iv. V. 17. 133 


χόσμον ἀπέφηνε. Id. (de Creat. princ. p. 728.) τὰ γὰρ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλε- 
σεν εἰς εἶναι. In like manner Luther translates “das sie seyen.” ‘The 
question now arises whether this way of understanding the words 
can be shown to be grammatically correct. With this view, Elsner 
quotes a multitude of passages, where ὡς is construed with the par- 
ticiple, to express the end or design. That, however, it was unne- 
cessary to prove; the question is whether, in such cases, the present 
participle stands for the future. ‘The participle of εἴμιν which occurs 
in two of the instances cited, cannot prove this, seeing that cus, even 
in the present participle, has the sense of the future, and it does not 
seem evident that either Xenophon or Aristides there used them in 
the present tense. If then we are to abide by this explanation, 
nothing is left for us but to consider ὡς as equivalent to εἰς (See 
Matthie, 5. 846, Hermann, zu Viger, p. 807,) and ὅντα to τὸ εὔναυ.- 
A parallel passage would then be found in Plato’s Symp. p. 205, éx 
τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ ἕν ἰόντα. In fact, Mangey has proposed (ad Phil, 
t. ii. p. 317,) to emend the text, by substituting εἰς for ὡς. But itis 
sufficient of itself to discredit this expedient, that ὄντα is unaccom- 
panied by the article, which would, in that case, be indispensable. 
We, therefore, prefer taking ὡς in the sense of the Hebrew Caph 
veritatis, a use of it which occurs in classical Greek, (see Zeune zu 
Viger, p. 563,) and not merely with adverbs and adjectives, but with 
substantives also. It would then be translated, not tanquam, but ut; 
and the idea of calling involve that of bringing into existence. 
With respect now to the verb χαλέω, its proper meaning of éo call is 
here to be held fast, as it implies an allusion to the call of Jehovah 
“7. This designation of the creative energy of the Divine Being as 
a calling was prevalent among the Jews. Com. Isa. xli. 4. W870 
ANI NIP, and in the Book of Wisdom, xi. 26. We find the same 
term also among the Samaritans. Chrysostom observes to the point: 
οὐδὲ εὔπε TOV παξάγοντος τὼ οὐχ ὄντα ἀλλὰ, XAAOVVTOS, τὴν πλείονω 
εὐχολίαν δηλῶν. But to come now to the sense upon the determina- 
tion of which the construction has no real influence. In like manner 
as to the former, many expositors give to this clause, a direct refer- 
ence to the case of Abraham, several understand the words “ those 
things that be not,” to refer to the defective power of procreation 
which God had restored; while others, which is certainly the most 
natural way, if we seek to give the words a more special scope, refer 
τὰ μὴ ὄντα, to the late spiritual posterity of Abraham. ‘This interpre- 
tation is followed by Origen, Ambrose, and Beza. Chr. Schmid, 
Beausobre and Erasmus, likewise adopt it, but take ὄντα in the pla- 
tonic sense of things excellent, important, and τὰ μὴ ὄντα, things 
unimportant. In illustration, we may cite the following passage 
from Athanasius: ‘‘ For if it be true, that they whose nature was not 
to be, were by the appearance and love of the word called into ex- 


* He speaks not of creating, but of calling the things that are, to express 
the greater facility. 


134 CHAPTER Iv. V. 17, 18. 


istence, it may be inferred, that being once emptied of all sense of 
God, and having turned from him to things that are not, men must 
have been so emptied for ever. Now what is meant by the things 
that are not, is evil, whereas the things that are, mean good things, 
having been made by the God that is.”? It may be, however, that 
we have to suppose the words to refer generally to the creation of 
the world, which is one of the most difficult objects for faith. A 
belief in the creation of the world without pre-existent matter, dis- 
tinguished the Hebrew from every heathen nation. Hence, to de- 
signate the omnipotence of the Divine Being, the Jews oft appealed 
to this great act, as 2 Mace. vii. 28; and Philo, in the passage we 
have quoted from de vita Mosis, 1. iii. p. 693. Perhaps, therefore, 
Paul merely meant to point in general to an object in reference to 
which it was hard for Abraham, as it is for all, to believe. 


P ART WV 4 


DESCRIPTION OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM AND STATEMENT OF THE 
NOBLE BLESSINGS ACCRUING TO BELIEVERS, AS EXHIBITED IN HIS 
EXAMPLE. Vv. 18—25. 


As the Apostle does not write systematically, he here yields to his 
feelings, which prompt him to delineate the greatness of faith and 
power of confidence, manifested in the instance alluded to from the 
life of Abraham, and in this manner he gives us the characteristics 
of his διχαιοσύνη. Bengel: Ostendit Paulus fidem non esse rem 
tenuem, cui justificationem adscribat, sed vim eximiam. Were we 
to point out the right place for this admirable delineation in the chain 
of proof, it would be between the 3d and 4th verses of the chapter. 
Here it is worth while to compare Philo, de Abrah. 

V. 18. Ὃς παρ᾽ ἐλπύδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν. An oxymoron similar 
to 5065 insperata. The antithesis of the double ἐλπὶς designates the 
twofold sphere with which the spirit of the believer is conversant, 
one inferior, that of the usual order of things, and one that is supe- 
rior, and into which we cannot penetrate but by faith. ‘The Apostle’s 
meaning is, that on the one hand Abraham might look to the order 
and laws of nature; on which side he had no hope. On the other, 
he might contemplate the omnipotence and promise of God, and upon 
these build the strongest expectations. Chrysostom: παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα τὴν 
ἀνθρωπίνην, ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Melancthon: Fidei objectum est 
verbum, quod pugnat cum externa specie, ut Abrahae promittitur se- 
men et posteritas, cui velit Deus benedicere, interim conjux est sterilis, 
ipse esteffcetus. Nobis promittit pacem et vitam, interim exercemur 
omni genere affictionum, et in morte vita non conspicitur. Bengel: 


CHAPTER Iv. v. 18, 19. 135 


Una eademque res et fide et spe apprehenditur, fide ut res que 
vere edicitur, spe ut res leta, que certo et fieri potest et fiet; preter 
spem rationis, in spe promissionis credidit. Calvin obtains a differ- 
ent interpretation by taking παρὰ aS comparative: Potest etiam legi 
supra spem, et forsan magis apposite, quasi diceret, ipsum sua fide 
longe superasse quidquid concipere poterat. Nisi enim sursum alis 
celestibus evolet fides, ut omnes carnis sensus procul despiciat, in 
luto mundi semper herebit. : 

εἰς τὸ yevéodai may be resolved into xat οὕτως ἐγένετο; as is done by 
Luther, Michaelis, and de Wette in their translations; or again εἰς 
like the Hebrew 9, indicates the subject of Faith. So Castalio and 
Beza, who translates: fore ut fieret. Οὕτως ἔσται τὸ onéeua σον is from 
Gen. xv. 5. The οὕτως refers to the multitude of stars, which Abra- 
ham, who received the promise by night, beheld in the sky. Ps. exlvit. 
4, ‘The stars are represented as uncountable. 

V.19. This and the following verse afford the explanation of παρ᾽ 
ἐλπίδα and ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. In the present, Paul mentions what, accord- 
ing to the lower order of things, might have yielded a hope, and yet now 
yielded none to him. In the 20th, what, in the higher order of things, 
afforded him a sufficient ground of faith. Beautifully Chrysostom: εὖδες 
πῶς τιθήσυ καὶ τὰ κωλύματα; καὶ THY ὑψηλὴν Tov δικαίου γνώμην πάντα 
ὑπερβαύνουσαν; mae’ εχπίδα, φησὶ, τὸ ἐπαγγελθέν. τοῦτο χώλυμα πεὼ- 
tov’ οὐδὲ yae εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἕτεξον ᾿Αβεαὰμ οὕτω λαβόντα παύδα ἐἰδεῦν" οὗ μὲν 
yae μετ᾽ αὐτὸν; εἰς αὐτὸν ἔβλεπον. ἐκεῖνος δὲ εἰς οὐδένα; ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν θεὸν 
μόνον" διὸ χκαὺ mae’ ἐλπίδα ἔλεγεν. εἴτα τὸ σῶμα νενεκρωμένον. δεύτερον 
τοῦτο. χαὺ ἡ νέχρωσις τῆς μήτεας Σάῤῥας. τοῦτο καὶ τρίτον. ἢ 

μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστεις. Τῇ πίστει is here to be translated in re- 
spect of faith. It is the dative of the quality. The Apostle, accord- 
ing to a frequent Hebrew practice, here applies the μείωσις, and by 
prefixing the negative, renders more forcible the declaration he makes 
of the strength of Abraham’s faith. We would paraphrase it, ‘* And 
in truth he gave no small proof of faith, but......”” Opposed to this 
ἀσθένεια πίστεως, Stands πληξοφορηθεὶς Of verse 21. Comp. Rom. xiv. 
1; 1 Mace. xi. 49. 

Οὐ χατενόησε, κτλ. There were three circumstances calculated to 
weaken Abraham’s faith. His own age, the age of Sarah, and her 
former barrenness. χατανοεὺν, to take into consideration. Luther 
on Gen. xv. 1. ‘ Denn wo Gott seine hand abzeucht, spintisirt ihm 
das Fleisch gar auf eine wunderliche Dialectica und Rhetorica uhd 
denkt der Sache gar seltsam nach.”” This χατανοεὺν to consider, is 


* Observe how he states both the obstacles in the case, and how the lofty 
mind of the just man triumphed over them all. What had been promised 
was against hope, he says. This is the first hindrance, for he had no in- 
stance to look to of any former Abraham having thus received a son. They 
who came after, looked back upon him. He, however, had none to look to 
but God; and therefore it is that Paul says against hope. Besides his body 
was dead, which was a second; and so was Sarah’s womb, and that was a 
third obstacle. 


136 CHAPTER Ivy. v. 20, 21. 


the opposite of inward confidence. In the latter, the mind’s eye is 
directed steadily to one object, and hence flows strength of will and 
resolution; in the former, however, it fluctuates between two direc- 
tions, and hence weakness of purpose and determination. 

τὸ copa ἥδη vevexeouévorv, κτλ. Heb. xi. 12. ᾿Εχατονταετὴς. Gen. 
Xvil. 17. véxewors, is with Paul equivalent to θάνατος, 2 Cor. iv. 10. 
It stands here in place of the adjective μήτεα vevexeouévy. Sarah 
was ninety years old. Gen. xvii. 17. 

Ver. 20. Chrysostom: Οὐδὲ yae ἀπόδειξιν ἔδωχενν οὐδὲ σημεῖον 
ἐποίησεν ὃ Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ ῥήματα ἣν ψιλὰ μόνον, ἐπαγγελλόμενα ἅπερ οὐχ ὑπισ- 
χνεῖτο ἣ Φύσις. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐ διεχείθη. ὃ Οὐ διεχεφίθη, he staggered not. 
It is also used in this sense, Rom. xiv. 23; Jas. i. 6, il. 4. Ty ἀπι- 
στίᾳ, instead of διὰ τῆς ἀπιστίας. Vulgate, diffidentia. ‘The Syrian, 
‘like one of little faith.” Falsely rendered by Michaelis, “he suf- 
fered not his doubts to wax into disbelief of the promise of God.” 
Εἰς ἐπαγγελίαν. The preposition here means in regard to, we should 
rather have expected πρός. 

ἐνεδυναμώθηῆ. The Apostle appears to have chosen this form for 
the sake of the parallel with διεκείθη. For a similar reason he seems 
to use the dative τῇ πίστει, which corresponds with τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ. ‘The 
dative τῇ πίστει, however, is not of the same import with τῇ ἀπίστίᾳῳ" 
but rather as at v. 19, is the dative of the quality, in respect of faith. 
The passive voice in which the verb is used, has the force of the 
Hebrew Hithpael. Qicumenius: δείκνυσι πολλῷ καμάτῳ καὶ δυνάμευ 
“ψυχῆς κατοφξθουμένην τὴν πίστιν. 

δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ. ‘This expression 57 123 Dw denotes, according 
to Hebrew idiom, “ to manifest practically that we recognize certain 
attributes of God.”’ In this sense it is especially used when a call is 
made for sincerity, John ix. 24, Jos. vi. 19. ‘The meaning here 
accordingly is, ‘ Abraham proved by his actions that he had no doubt 
of the omnipotence of God.’? So in 1 John v. 10, itis said, that he 
who believeth not the gospel, ‘‘ hath made God a liar.”” Chrysos- 
tom: ἄρα τὸ μὴ meereeyalecbar, δοξάξειν ἐστὶ τὸν Θεὸν; ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ πεξ- 
LECYACECOAL πιλημμελεῦν...... τί δέ ἔστιν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δόξαν; ἐνενόησεν 
αὐτοῦ τὴν δικαιοσύνην, τὴν ἄπειρον δύναμιν---καὶ τὴν πεοσήκουσαν πσίεξὺ 
αὐτοῦ ἔννοιαν λαβὼν, οὕτως ἐπληξοφορφήθη περὶ τῶν ὑποσχέσεων. Calvin: 
Extra certamen quidem nemo Deum omnia posse negat: verum simul- 
ac objicitur aliquid quod cursum promissionum Dei impediat, Dei 
virtutem e suo gradu dejicimus. It would be better, however, to 
take δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ into the following verse. 

Ver. 21. states in what the δοὺς δόξαν consisted. 


* For God neither afforded him a proof, nor made any sign. Mere words 
announced to him what nature did not promise, and yet he did not stagger. 

} Hence, to abstain from curious inquiries is to glorify God, as to make 
them is to transgress....... What means “giving glory to God?” It is, that he 
reflected upon his justice and infinite power, and forming proper views of 
these, he was assured of the promises. 


CHAPTER IV. V. 22, 23, 24. 137 


Ver. 22. With these words St. Paul resumes his theme, and re- 
turns properly to the third verse of this chapter. ‘Theod: οὕτω καὶ 
ἐν τοὺς ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον; καὶ ἐν τοὺς MEd τοῦ VOMOVs δείξας τὴν πίστιν ἀνθήσασαν;, 
Ent τὸ πεδοχείμενον μεταφέρει τὸν λόγον. We must supply the whole 
preceding context as subject to ἐλογίσθη. ‘* His superiority to all 
doubts, and, amidst the greatest temptations, giving God the glory.” 

Ver. 23. Calvin: Quoniam probatio ab exemplo non semper firina 
est, ne id in questionem veniat, diserte asserit Paulus in Abrahez per- 
sona editum fuisse specimen communis justitiz, que ad omnes spec- 
tat. ‘The Jew might certainly have still objected, that although on 
historical grounds, this narrative, and especially this mode of justifi- 
cation, had been recorded to the praise of Abraham, it was, however, 
impossible to deduce from thence any inference applicable to other 
men. The Apostle maintains, on the contrary, that the great doctrine 
of faith being counted for righteousness, stands for all times, and 
therefore is true of the Christian. In the Rabbinical Comm. Bere- 
schit Rabba, there is a similar passage, ‘* What is written of Abra- 
ham is written also of his children.”’ And Philo, with reference to 
the histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (de Abrah. p. 350.) says: 
ὧν τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐν ταῖς ἱερωτάταις ἐστηλιτεῦσθαν γραφαῖς συμβέβηκεν, od 
τρὸς τὸν ἐκείνων ἔπαινον αὐτὸ μόνον; ἀλλὰ χαὶ ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας 
mporpépacdar, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν ὁμοίων ζῆλον wyayecy.t 

V. 24. Seeing that now, under the New Testament, there obtains 
a system of imputation by free grace, we are entitled to look back 
upon the Old, and if we find any similar case, to apply the particular 
circumstances of it to ourselves. It may here be questioned, whether 
what the Apostle proceeds to say about the work of Christ, has any 
reference to what he had previously said about Abraham, or if it be 
totally unconnected with it. Several, as Bengel and Cocceius, sup- 
pose, that Abraham’s faith in the resurrection in general is put as a 
counterpart to the Christian’s faith in a risen Christ. It cannot be 
said, however, that verse 17 speaks directly of Abraham’s belief in 
the resurrection of the dead. Others, as Grotius, compare Abra- 
ham’s belief in the recovery of his lost power of procreation, with 
the Christian’s in the resurrection of the Saviour, which is still more 
untenable. Itis far better to suppose that Paul, as he is wont, here 
regards the resurrection, as the first step in the exaltation of Christ, 
and hence, as the summit of the work of redemption. As to Paul’s 
not making a risen Christ the direct object of our faith, but speaking ἡ 
of the God who raised him, this is done for the sake of perfecting the 
parallel between the Christian faith and that of Abraham. We may, 
therefore, paraphrase the passage in the following manner: ** We who 
believe on the same God on whom Abraham believed, but who ap- 


* And thus having shown that faith had flourished equally among those 
before and those under the law, he transfers his discourse to the subject. 

{ Whose virtues have come to be inscribed in our sacred books, not for 
the sake of their praise, but in behalf of those to whom it should fall, to ex- 
hort and guide to a zeal for the same. 

18 


138 CHAPTER Iv. V. 25. 


pears to us in a peculiar relation, as finisher of the work of redemp- 
tion.” 

V. 25. The Apostle now states, in few words, wherein that work 
of redemption consists, which has been accomplished by the God in 
whom Christians believe, and in doing so, he returns, as it were, to 
chap. iii. 21, 22. 

ὃς παρεδόθη scilicet, εἰς θάνατον, Which the LXX. add in Is. xxxviii. 
13, where they render ‘mown by παρεδόθην. So also, Is. liii. 12, 
καὺ διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθηή. ‘The Apostle again separates by a 
μερισμὸς, two things properly conjoined as one. ‘The διὰ τὰ παραπ- 
τώμοτα strictly considered, cannot mean any thing different from 
διὰ Inv δικαίωσιν. ‘The manifestation of the ideal of holiness, ὁ. 6. 
of love supreme, rendered necessary the sufferings and the death 
of Christ. But it is by his accomplishment of a perfect obedience, 
and realization of a perfect love, that the διχαίωσις is wrought out. 
We must, however, suppose the Apostle had some end in view, when 
he made the separation. The δικαίωσις of believers through Christ 
is a very extensive term, comprehending the removal of present 
guilt, which is the ἀπολύγρωσις in its narrower sense, and the commu- 
nication of the new principle of life, issuing at last in the accom- 
plishment and glorification of the saints in the αἰὼν μέλλων, which is 
the ἀπολύρωσις in a wider sense. ‘The Redeemer could not complete 
and crown the δικαίωσις, Without being emancipated from the barriers 
of terrestrial life, and raised to a glorified state of existence. Con- 
templated from this point of view, the Apostle might well represent 
the Scxa’wous, aS an especial product of the resurrection, the more so 
when we take into account that Paul, in speaking of the resurrection 
of Christ, comprehends in it the whole ensuing interval, c. i. 4, the 
life in and with God. ‘There is the example of a similar μερισμὸς, in 
which δικαιωσύνη and σω7ηρία are disjoined, in Rom. x. 10. Calvin 
draws the attention to this point: Summa vero est, ubi fructum mortis 
Christi et resurrectionis tenemus, nihil ad implendos omnes justitiz 
numeros deesse. Neque enim dubium est, quin mortem ἃ resurrec- 
tione separans, ruditati nostra sermonem accommodet, quia alioqui 
verum est, Christi obedientia, quam in morte exhibuit, partam fuisse 
nobis justitiam. Sed quia resurgendo patefecit Christus quantum 
morte sua profecisset, hec quoque distinctio ad docendum apta est, 
sacrificio, quo expiata sunt peccata, inchoatam fuisse salutem nos- 
tram, resurrectione vero demum fuisse perfectam. Nam justitie prin- 
cipium est, nos reconciliari Deo, complementum autem, abolita morte 
vitam dominari. With these words terminates the first section of 
the doctrinal part of the Epistle, the Apostle having hitherto shown 
man’s want of salvation, and what is the only, the indispensable re- 
medy, justification through the free grace of God in Christ. He: 
now proceeds to delineate the effects which flow from receiving the 
pardon of sin and justification. 


CHAPTER FIFTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


Hiraerro the Apostle has been describing the misery of man through sin, 
and its only antidote, redemption by Christ; he now proceeds to show what 
are the fruits and consequences of that redemption in the individual who 
becomes the subject of it. These consist in the sense of peace and joy, 
which the justified believer even now experiences in his heart,and in the 
prospect of the future glory of the children of God. Nor have the afflictions 
of time any power to destroy either his present blessedness, which is in- 
ward, or yet the hope of that which awaits him hereafter, and which is both 
inward and outward. ‘To make still more apparent the magnitude of the 
fruits secured by this redemption, the Apostle, viewing mankind as a 
whole, places their miserable condition, as unredeemed, in contrast with 
their blessed condition as a redeemed community, describes, in a magnifi- 
cent parallel, Adam as the head and founder of the race in the state of fall, 
and Christ as its head and founder in the state of recovery, and thus de- 
monstrates, that the redemption is the greatest and most important event 
in the history of man, the centre of all spiritual life and felicity. 


DIVISION. 


1. The blessed consequences of justification through Christ, are peace and 
joy in the soul even here upon earth, joined to the hope of glory in 
the world beyond the grave. Neither this hope of future glory, both 
within and around him, nor yet that foretaste of it, which is even now 
his portion, but which for the present is only inward, can be troubled by 
the afllictions which the Christian meets with upon earth. V.1—11. 

2. The noble effects of the redemption, contemplated by means of a contrast 
between the general condition of mankind, as involved in the ruin en- 
tailed by Adam, and their condition, as advanced to the felicity which 
is derived from Christ. V.12—21. 


BART. Τὶ 


THE BLESSED CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST ARE 
PEACE AND JOY IN THE SOUL EVEN HERE UPON EARTH, TOGETHER 
WITH THE HOPE OF GLORY IN THE WORLD BEYOND THE GRAVE. 
NEITHER THIS HOPE OF FUTURE GLORY, BOTH WITHIN AND AROUND 
HIM, NOR EVEN THAT FORETASTE OF IT, WHICH IS EVEN NOW HIS 
PORTION, BUT WHICH FOR THE PRESENT IS ONLY INWARD, CAN BE 
TROUBLED BY THE CALAMITIES WHICH BEFALL THE CHRISTIAN UPON 
EARTH. v. 1--1]. 


V. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν. The very last topic which the Apostle 
had touched in the former chapter was the mode of the διχαίωσις. 


140 CHAPTER V. V. I. 


This enables him to unite the present closely with the previous sec- 
tion of his epistle, 

εἰρήνην ἔχομεν. ‘The Codd. A. C. and D., the Greek Fathers, and 
the Syrian, Arabic, and Koptie versions, all read ἔχωμεν. The ex- 
ternal evidences for both readings are nearly equiponderant; the in- 
ternal speak decidedly for the indicative. ‘The explanation of these 
words by the Greek Fathers, Origen, Chrysostom, ‘Fheophylact 
and Theodoret, is false. ‘They suppose that the Apostle intends a 
cessation from sin, considered as war with God. Qicumenius: Ids 
δ᾽ ἂν τις εἰξηνεύοι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν; axorovOay ταῖς ἐντολαῖς αὐτοῦ; ὡς ὅγε 
ἁμαρτάνων πολεμεῖ Θεῷ. ἢ Origen: Sciens quia bellum contra Diabo- 
lum pacem patrat ad Deum. Far more truly did the Reformers un- 
derstandghe peace here spoken of to mean the tranquillity of con- 
science, which ensues upon the fall of that barrier of separation 
mentioned in Is. lix.2. As such do the Scriptures describe this 
peace, Phil. iv. 7, 1 John iii. 2. Beza: Nihil est horribilius terro- 
ribus conscientiz suorum peccatorum morsibus sauciate. Hine 
omnes falsarum religionum species, dum adversus hoc tantum malum 
queritur remedium, idque frustra. Calvin: Eam nee Phariseus 
habet qui falsa operum fiducia turget, nec stupidus peccator, qui vi- 
tiorum dulcedine ebrius, non inquietatur. Quanquam enim neuter 
apertum bellum videtur habere, quemadmodum is qui peccati sensu 
feritur: Quia tamen non vere accedunt ad Dei judicium, nequaquam 
concordiam cum illo habent. Stupor enim conscientia, quidam est 
veluti a Deo recessus. 

neds τὸν Θεόν. ‘The more complete the harmony between the spirit 
of man and all without him, the greater is the blessedness which he 
enjoys. For all that man seeks in love is concord with his own 
being. But the highest law of every individual existence is the will 
of that God who alone is a law to himself. Consequently the har- 
mony after which an individual strives, as well for himself as where 
others are concerned, is only to be attained by entire obedience to the 
divine will. We have the perfect ideal of such a general harmony 
presented to us in the fellowship of the blessed, who for this reason 
that God is every thing to all of them, live together in tne fullest en- 
joyment of love. Now, misery must necessarily be the portion both 
of the man who still decidedly follows his sinful propensities, and of 
him in whose breast a war, but not through Christ, has begun against 
them. While the former still obeys the laws of his own will, or 
rather (as there can be no genuine will which is not founded upon 
knowledge) of his own wilfulness, and that has no laws, and to that 
would like to subject every thing else in the world, a voice from his 
inmost being proclaims aloud the glory and supremacy of the law of 
the divine will, to which, let him resist as he may please, he must ' 
at last, if he values his own happiness, submit. Death itself, which 


* But how can one have peace with God? By obeying hiscommandments, 
as he that transgresses wars with God. 


CHAPTER V. v. 1,2. 141 


puts an end to every other anguish, only aggravates this, by bringing 
the sinner nearer to the domain where that holy and unalterable law 
obtains. He thus feels that peace and harmony can never be his 
portion, except he renounce his pride and his struggle after autonomy, 
which he mistakes for genuine freedom. Even the man, however, 
who, disdaining to be the slave of his wilfulness, takes arms against 
it, cannot attain to peace so long as he is destitute of fellowship with 
Christ. Deep in his heart he feels, it is true, an approbation (vii. 
22.) of the divine will, but he is too weak to carry the sentiment into 
action; sin overpowers him, he finds, like a blind force, (vii. 17, 23,) 
and contrary to the desire of his better self, he sees himself involved 
in a state of rebellion against his God. From a believing surrender 
of the heart to Christ, as Him who does away sin, arises the certainty 
of pardon and sanctification, and through these peace also in our re- 
lation to God. 

Διὰ τοῦ Κυρίον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Xevorov. 'Theophylact considers the 
co-operation of Christ, here expressed, to consist in ἃ protecting 
power against sin. He says: Ὁ yag δικαιώσας ἧμας ἁμαφτωλοὺς ὄντας» 
συνεργήσειν καὶ εἰς τὸ φυλαχθήναυ ἡμὰς ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ. More 
correctly, ‘*‘ By means of the redemption which was wrought out by 
Christ.” 

V. 2. At οὗ xoi τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήχαμεν. Tleocwywyy Means ac- 
cess, approach. 'The word is borrowed from the usage of eastern 
courts, where a xeooaywysis conducted the stranger into the presence 
of the king. Our περοσαγωγεὺς to God is Jesus Christ. Hence else- 
where, also, our πεοσαγωγὴ is described as a consequence of the re- 
demption, Eph. ii. 18; iil. 12, where it is joined to the παῤῥησία" 
comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18. In these passages, πξοσαγωγὴ either stands in- 
dependently, or is connected with eds τὸν πατέφξα. In the same way 
it behoves us to take it here, viz. in direct reference to God. We 
require, accordingly, to place the point after toyjxauev, although it 
cannot be denied that προσαγωγὴ in that case stands somewhat abrupt. 
So Gcumenius, Lamb. Bos and Michaelis. By far the greater num- 
ber of expositors, however, without any interpunctuation, unite the 
neocayayn With εἰς τὴν yaew ταύτην. ‘To this it cannot be objected, 
that then the preposition πεὸς would have been used, for there are 
innumerable instances of εἰς standing in the place of weds, 6. ρ΄. Rom. 
iii. 22. Still the mode in which πεοσαγωγὴ is uniformly employed 
in the New Testament, appears to be against it, denoting, as we have 
remarked it always does, approach to God. ‘The Apostle here by 
the xai distinguishes the πεοσαγωγὴν from the εἰρήνη of our conscience, 
as another distinct fruit of the atonement; and in what, it may be 
asked, do they differ? The εἰρήνη refers to the inward state of the 
believer, the πεοσαγωγὴ to the relation of his soul to God, as some- 
thing first resulting from peace of conscience. For it is only in con- 


* For he who justified us while we were sinners, will also contribute to 
our being protected in his righteousness. 


142 CHAPTER V. V. 2. 


sequence of his conscience being pacified, that man derives filial 
confidence at all times to draw near to God in prayer, and that he 
ceases to be any longer slavishly afraid of him. “Eyew is here used 
in the sense, lo obfain. 

τῇ πίστει εἰς τὴν χάξιν ταύτην, is by Michaelis translated in con- 
nection with the foregoing, ‘through whom we also, by means of 
faith in this grace in which we stand, obtain access to God. Χάξιν. 
Whether we construe this word with προσαγωγὴ, or, as we prefer, 
with πίστει, in both cases we can only understand it, as meaning 
κε that objective relation which has, once for all, been established be- 
tween the holy God and sinful humanity,’’ even the relation of chil- 
dren to a father, into which men have entered through Christ. ‘Taking 
it in this sense, the former mode of construction would make the 
meaning as follows: ‘Through the Saviour, we have free access to 
the everlasting justification, under the economy of which we are at 
present placed, so that, however often we fall, we may yet in faith 
hold fast the assurance that Christ will accomplish for us the work 
of οὔ  δικαίωσις.᾽ According to the second, the meaning becomes, 
« By believing in the gracious institution of salvation under which we 
now live, there is secured for us such a childlike relationship towards 
God, that it is always a joyful thing to hold intercourse with him.” 

Ἔν ᾧ ἑστήχαμεν. Here Grotius most unnaturally makes niore 
the antecedent to the relative. As objectionable is Beza’s translation, 
per quam. ἑστήκαμεν is rendered by Ambrose, Theophylact, Grotius, 
and Michaelis, with various shades of the emphatic meaning, fo perse- 
vere, be established, set up. It is, however, equally probable that it 
has not here the same emphasis asin 1 Pet. v.12. Hence De Wette, 
‘in possession of which we are.’’ How beautifully does Chrysostom 
observe at this place! Ez τοίνυν μαχξὸν ὄντας neosnyays, πολλῷ μᾶλλον 
ἐγγὺς γενομένους καθέξει. Σὺ δέ μου σχόπει tas πανταχοῦ τὰ δύο τίθησι; 
καὶ τὰ mae’ αὐτοῦ; καὶ τὰ Ue ἡμῶν. ἀλλὰ τὼ μὲν αὐτοὺ πουκχίλα; καὶ 
πολλὰ καὶ διάφορα. καὶ γὰρ ἀπέθανε δὺ ἡμας, καὶ χατήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς» καὶ 
meoonyays, καὶ yaew ἔδωκεν ἀφατον᾽ ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν πύστυν εἰσηνέγχαμεν 
μόνον. ἢ 

χαὶ χαυχώμεθα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. Besides peace in the soul, there is the 
hope of glory beyond the grave. Beza: Non solum ab omni dam- 
nationis formidine liberi sumus, immo, magna laetitia perfusi exulta- 
mus de hereditate celesti. Pelagius: 'l'antumque est quod speramus, 
quantum ex se nuilus auderet, ne non spes sed blasphemia putare- 
tur, 60 quod multis pro sua magnitudine incredibile videtur. Chrysos- 
tom: ᾽Εννόησον τοίνυν ἡλίκα τὰ μέλλοντα; ὅταν καὶ ἐπὺ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν εἶναν 


* If then he hath given us access when we were far away, much more will 
he uphold us being brought near. And remark, I pray, how the Apostle every- 
where distinguishes, on the one hand, what was accomplished by him (Christ), 
on the other, what by us. And various,and many, and different are the things 
which he hath done; for he died on our account, and reconciled us, and 
brought us near to God, and gave us grace unspeakable; while all that we on 
our part contribute is only faith. 


CHAPTER V. V. 8. 143 


λυπηξοῖς μέγα Φρονῶμεν. Τοσαύτη ἣ Tov Θεοῦ δωξεὰ; καὶ οὕτως οὐδὲν αὖ- 
τῆς ἀηδές. int μὲν γὰρ τὼν ἔξωθεν πεαγμάτων; οἱ μὲν ἀγῶνες πόνον ἔχουσι 
καὶ ὀδύνην καὶ ταλαιπωξφίαν; οἱ δὲ στέφανοι καὶ τὰ ἔπαθλα τὴν ἡδονὴν χο- 
μίδουσιν. ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐπάθλων τὼ παλαίσματα οὐχ 
ἧττον ἦμιν ἡδίω. Instead of δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Vulgate, and several 
Latin interpreters, read gloria filiorum Dei. We may either under- 
stand by the expression, as is usually done, the glory which emanates 
from God, and is imparted to the blessed, or the blessedness of God 
himself, of which we are to partake. 

V. 3. In the foregoing verse, the Apostle had spoken of the Chris- 
tian’s prospect in a future world. Upon this subject, infidels, as 
heathen infidels actually did, might scoff. (See Minut. Felix, Octav. 
6. 12. Arnob. adv. Gentes ]. ii. in fin. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. iv.) 
He therefore proceeds to say, that even the calamities of this life, so 
far from rendering the Christian miserable, rather tended to elevate 
his hopes, thereby contributing to his felicity. Chrysostom: ὅξα πά- 
λιν τὴν Φιλονειχκίαν ἸΤαύλον, πῶς εἰς TO ἐναντίον περιτρέπευ τὸν λόγον. «+e 
οὐ γὰξ μόνον οὐχ ἀναιξεγικαὶ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐλπίδος αἱ θλίψεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ κα- 
τασχευαστιχαί. Clem. Alex. (Strom. 1. ii.) “ Exulting in these 
arms, Ὁ Lord, says the enlightened Christian, give me but a field 
and see how I shail acquit myself. Let calamity come. Strong in 
thy love, I mock at danger.’’ Melancthon: Multi deriserunt Chris- 
tianos predicantes liberationem a peccato et a morte, cum nullum 
genus hominum sit calamitosius. Imo et sanctorum conscientie, cum 
agnoscunt suam infirmitatem, dolent et luctantur cum dubitatione, 
disputantes an Deo placeant, cum adeo sint infirmi. Nec est levis 
tentatio, quia cum fides ex verbo debeat pendere et statuere, quod 
Deus certo propitius sit propter Christum, nostra infirmitas hoe oculis 
et sensibus comprehendere conatur. ‘The Apostle, in proceeding, 
begins with a formula which is very common with him, and the force 
of which is to heighten the emphasis οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ. 

He makes a climax, by which the leading thought is more strongly 
brought out. Itis as follows: ‘That hope of future glory at which 
you scoff, is so far from being damped by our tribulations, that, on 
the contrary, it is even greatly elevated by them. In the glow of 
language the Apostle loves this figure, which we find chap. vili. 29, 
30; x. 14,15. Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. 1. iv. ὁ. '7,) cites the 
present passage as a proof that Paul did not despise the ornament of 
eloquence when opportunity occurred. ‘The Rabbins also not un- 


* Judge then how great must be the things to come, when we glory even 
in what wears the semblance of distress. So precious is the gift of God, and 
so utterly is it devoid of all bitterness. For in regard to external things, our 
struggles are ever attended with toil, and pain, and misery, and only crowns 
and rewards confer the pleasure. Buthere itis not so. Our very struggles 
are no less sweet than the prize itself. 

+ Observe, again, the Apostle’s taste for controversy, and how he turns the 
argument the opposite way..... Tribulations are not merely not destructive, 
they are even confirmatory of such a hope. 


144 CHAPTER V. V. 3, 4, 5. 


frequently use the climax. So Schir. Haschiram Rabba, fol. 3, 2, 
(in Schéttgen): R. Pinehas fil. Jair dixit: Sedulitas nos perducit ad 
innocentiam, innocentia ad puritatem, puritas ad sanctitatem, sancti- 
tas ad humilitatem, humilitas ad metum peccatorum, metus peceato- 
rum ad pietatem, pietas ad spiritum sanctum, spiritus sanctus ad re- 
surrectionem mortuorum. 

Καυχάσθαν 15 construed with ἑπὸὺ and περὶ, and also with ἐν, Rom. 
ii. 17, 23. It may hence be said, that the θλίψεις are the object of 
the glorifying, which sense would make the text a fine parallel to 
ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης. ἐν may also, however, be regarded as denoting 
the state of the persons. ‘“Yxouory, patience. See ati. 7. Thom. 
Aquinas: Non quidem sic, quod tribulatio sit ejus causa effectiva, 
sed quia tribulatio est materia et occasio exercendi patientie actum. 

V. 4. Δοχυμὴν can have either an active or a passive sense. It 
may be taken, like Soxuasia, to signify probation, trial, in compli- 
ance with which view, Luther translates it experience; so 2 Cor. 
xiii. 3. ‘Thus also Grotius expounds: Exploratio sui ipsius; nam 
patiendo discit homo suas vires; And Camerarius: ‘Tentatione divina 
innotescit, non quidem Deo sed hominibus, quod antea latuit. Beza, 
Melancthon, and Carpzovius follow in the same path. The word 
may also, however, have a passive signification, confirmedness, 
genuineness. Phil. ii. 22. 2 Cor. ix. 13. In 1 Peter i. 7, the 
word δοχίμιον has, contrary to the rule, the same passive signification, 
and perhaps also in James i. 3. Theophylact: Ἢ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δόκυ- 
μον τὸν πειραζομενον ἀπεργάζεται" δόκιμος δὲ γενόμενος ὃ avOgwrtos, καὶ 
θαῤῥὼν ἐπὶ τὼ ἀγαθῷ αὐτοῦ συνειδότι ὅτι διὼ τὸν Θεὸν ZOU By, ἐλπίζεν τὰς 
brie τῶν τοιούτων θλίψεων ἀμουβάς. ἢ If δοχύμιον in James i. 3, bears 
the passive signification, the derivation of these two Christian virtues 
by the two Apostles is reversed. But yet neither of them is less 
true than the other; for not more does patience confirm faith, than 
faith, when confirmed, begets patience. ‘The climaxes of the Apostle, 
however, are not always to be urged, e. g. 2 Pet. i. 5, 7. 

ἡ δὲ δοχιμὴ ἐλπίδα. Calov: Qui in cruce confirmantur imagini filii 
Dei, ex eo confirmantur, quod etiam eidem aliquando confirmandi 
sint in gloria. Rom. viii. 29. Limborch: Hee spes non conditio- 
nata, qua quis sperat si patiatur se adepturum coronam gloria, sed 
quee in fideli existit post conditionem impletam, estque promissionis 
divine generalis specialis applicatio. Such the Apostle describes his 
own hope to be, 2 Tim. iv. 6, 8. 

V. 5. Ἢ δὲ éanis ov καταισχύνευ. This declaration is true of every 
right hope in God. Ecclesiasticus ii. 10. But here the article ἡ 
stands for the demonstrative pronoun αὕτη ἡ ἐλπίς. Καταισχύνειν 10 
expose false pretensions. Ambrose: Non confundit, dum stulti et 
hebetes a perfides judicamur, credentes que mundana carent ratione. 


* Patience makes him who is tempted experienced. But when aman has 
become experienced, and has confidence in his good conscience, he cherishes 
the hope of obtaining compensation for the afilictions to which God has sub- 
jected him. 


CHAPTER Iv. V. 5. 145 


ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ. This clause may be connected with what 
precedes, in three different ways. It may either be united dovvdé7as, 
and so co-ordinated with the two foregoing smaller clauses, by the 
word <iSézes supplied, in which case ὅτου would be objective. This 
view is taken by Baumgarten, but is very unnatural. Or again, oz, 
as causal particle, refers to the two smaller previous clauses, and 
gives the reason why Christians reap such blessed effects from afilic- 
tion; which construction is very apposite. Still better, however, is 
the Hebraistic one, by which ὅτι is connected with the clause imme- 
diately preceding it, as Erasmus does in the following words: Neque 
vero periculum est ut ea spes nos fallat, quandoquidem jam nunc 
certissimum pignus et arrhabonem tenemus, miram et inauditam Dei 
caritatem erga nos. Melancthon justly observes, that we require to 
suppose an intermediate member to the sentence. Our hope will not 
be put to shame, because God loves us supremely, and of this we 
are conscious. Chrysostom: ᾿Απαλλάξας 7οίνυν av7ovs ἱκανῶς ἀμφισβη- 
φήσεως ἁπάσης διὰ Τούων Tov ῥημάγων, οὐχ ἴστησυ μέχρι 7ὼν παξόνήων Tov 
λόγον. ἀλλὰ καὶ 7ὰ μέλλον)ὰ πάλιν ἐπάγειν εἰδὼς 7οὺς ἀσθενεστέξους καὶ Ta, 
nagdvla ϑηγοῦν7ας» καὶ οὐκ agxovpévovs 7ού7οις. καὺ πισήου7αυ αὐτὼ ἀπὸ 
7ὼν ἤδη δοθένγων......εἰ δὲ οὐχ ἐβούλε7ο μεγάλοις Nuas μεγὼ 7οὺς πόνους σ7ε- 
φάνοις δωρήσασθαι οὐκ ἂν πρὸ Tov πόνων τοσαῦτα ἔδωχεν ἀγαθά. νὺν δὲ τὸ 
θεφμὸν αὐτοὺ τῆς ἀγάπης δείκνυταυ ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠρέμα» καὶ KATA μυ- 
κεὸν ἡμὰς ἐτίμησεν, ἀλλ᾽ GOCOOY τὴν πηγὴν τῶν ἀγαθὼν ἐξέχεε; καὶ ταῦτα πρὸ 
τῶν ἀγώνων. ὥστε κἂν μὴ σφόδεα Hs ἀξιος, μὴ ἀπογίνωσχε; ἔχων μεγάλην συνη- 
γόξον τοὺ δικάξοντος; τὴν dyarny.™ 

ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ. Among the older commentators, Theodoret, Au- 
gustine, and Pelagius, understand here, the love of man to God. 
The last of whom remarks: Magnitudo beneficiorum excitat in se 
magnitudinem caritatis. Even so the Catholic expositors, appealing 
to Luke xi. 42, John v. 42, 1 John iii. 17, v. 3, where ἀγάπη τοὺ Θεοῦ 
stands objectively. It is more correctly understood, however, by 
Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Luther, Melancthon, and others, as 
meaning the love of God to man, as at Rom. viii. 39, 2 Cor. xii. 14, 
1 John iv. 9. Exactly in the same way do we find mentioned in 
verse 8th, what God hath done in commendation of his love toward 
us. Besides, St. Paul, who is at so much pains always to point man 


* Having by these words fully freed their minds from all doubts, he does 
not bound his discourse by things present, but again introduces things future, 
from a consideration of the weakness of some who, not content with the latter, 
seek what is within their reach, and, by appealing to those which are already 
in hand, he proves what are afterwards to come. For unless he designed to 
bestow noble crowns upon us when our toils were over, he would never have 
conferred such blessings before they are begun. But now he manifests the 
ardour of his affection, by not bestowing his honours upon us insensibly and 
by degrees, but pouring out the full fountain of his blessings, and this before 
the battle. Learn from hence, not to despair, though you feel your own un- 
worthiness, seeing you have a powerful intercessor with the Judge, even love. 


146 CHAPTER V. V. 5, 6. 


away from himself to the objective ground of faith in God, woald 
scarcely have proposed the liveliness of man’s love to God as the 
proper basis of his confidence. ‘The expression ἐχχέχυται ἐν ταῖς 
xaedvacs must obviously signify something more than the mere know- 

ledge of this love of God derived from reflection, a bare understand- 
ing “of the promises of Scripture on the subject, as Calov. and Grotius 
are disposed to regard it; the latter of whom says: E/ffusa, id est 
abundanter testata hominibus. We must naturally view it as imply- 
ing a consciousness in the heart, such as is spoken of in Rom. viii. 
16, 2 Cor.i.22. ‘The Spirit is that element of new life, whereof we 

become partakers by faith,—the σπέομα Θεοῦ, 1 John iil. 9,—byv which 
all the inward experiences of the Christian are produced, and through 
which all the communications of God to him are made. In this way 
it is understood by Bugenhagen and Seb. Schmid, among Lutheran 
divines. Calvin: Significat participium diffusa adeo uberem esse 
divini in nos amoris revelationem, ut corda nostra impleat. Sic au- 
tem in omnes partes effusa, non modo tristitiam in rebus adversis 
mitigat, sed quasi suave condimentum amabiles reddit tribulationes. 
....-Certum est non aliud doceri a Paulo, quam hunc verum esse 
omnis dilectionis fontem, quod persuasi sunt fideles a Deo se amari; 
nec leviter duntaxat hic persuasfone tincti sunt, sed animos prorsus 
delibutos habent. Admirable is the observation of Ambrose: As the 
stranger in a foreign land cannot prove his origin, so does our faith 
wander as an exile here upon earth; et quia natura ejus verbis expli- 
cari non potest, virtutis, que major res est, testimonio commendatur. 
᾿Εχχέχυται. This word denotes always plenitude of communication, 
John, vii. 38, Acts 11. 17. 

V. 6. The verses from this to the 12th, containing, as they do, a 
description of the love of God, the blessed sense of which is known 
to us through his dwelling in our hearts, are connected, in point of 
form, with the 5th; in point of sense, however, they are a justifica- 
tion of the καύχησις in hope of eternal clory, expressed at the end of 
the 2d verse, and to which, at verse 11th, the Apostle again returns. 
He accordingly states, in the first instance, the great objective proof 
of the love of God to man, whereby the holy Spirit awakens in our 
hearts the sense of it in its unspeakable and unmerited greatness. 

ἔτι yae. Instead of this, the Syriac, Arabic, and Koptic versions 
read εἴ ye Isidorus and Augustine εἰ yae’ F. G εἰς 713 and the Vul- 
gate, Ireneeus, and Ambrose. translate, ut quid. It was probably the 
unusual position of the ἔτι, which led to all these various readings. 
If we read εἰ yae or εἴ ye, a harsh aposiopesis is introduced, or we 
must resolve to consider verse 7th as parenthetical, and seek the con- 
clusion in the 8th, which cannot, however, be done, as there is 
there a δὲν Besides, the Codex. Alexr. reads ἔσο once more after - 
ἀσθενῶν. and Griesbach has admitted it into the text. The external 
authority for this second ἔτι is certainlyweighty; and, according to 
the canon, which prescribes the preference of the more difficult to 
the easier reading, it ought to be received. With respect to the first 


CHAPTER V. V. 6, 7. 147 


eu, it is taken by Cider and Koppe in the sense over and above, as 
Luke xiv. 26. It cannot be denied, however, that in that case it would, 
in so animated a discourse, have a very trailing air; and it must like- 
wise be added, that the Apostle in reality brings forward nothing 
new, but merely enlarges on what has been already said. It will 
accordingly be more correct to construe it with dr7ay ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, as 
verse eighth will also induce us to do, and to suppose, that for the 
sake of emphasis, it has been here placed in front. 

The precise meaning of ἀσθενὴς it is not easy to determine. It 
stands here parallel with auag7w2d5 in verse 8. As such, its meaning 
may be twofold. It may, in the first place, signify, wretched, un- 
worthy. In this sense it is understood by Calvin, Chr. Schmid, and 
Wahl, and may be compared with 1 Cor. xii. 22, and 2 Cor. x. 10. 
"Phe LXX. moreover render “Ip by ἀσθενὴς. Prov. xxii. 22; xxxi. 5, 
9. When understood in this sense, however, ἀσθενὴς expresses too 
feebly the ἐχθεὰ of men to God, which is spoken of in the tenth 
verse, and would rather excite compassion. We prefer, accordingly, 
the other Sealbeawouyomsalcs by the powers of the divine life. 
Thus interpreted, it corresponds very accurately with the meaning of 
σὰρξ, as given by the Reformers, and adopted by us. So Beza, Gro- 
tius, and others. Michaelis. following the practice of the LXX., who 
render 23 by ἀσθενεῖν, make it fallen. ‘The two ideas of weakness 
and sin border very near upon each other; Heb. iv. 15; v. 2, where 
(Ecumenius remarks: ἀσθένειαν, 7ὴν duag7iav λέγει. Grotius: Cum 
nondum vires accepissemus ad serviendum Deum. 

If we must now dispose of the second 27, the simplest manner of 
doing so, would be by construing xa? καιρὸν with ἀσεβῶν. ** Being 
yetsinuers by the rule of that period.”’? So Pelagius, Erasmus, Cas- 
talio, Calvin, and others. Such a restriction οἷ ἀσεβὼν, however, 
would be totally contrary to the design of Paul, and weaken the im- 
pression of the whole. ‘The ordinary sense in which χαιξὸς is used, 
leads us to an entirely different interpretation. As employed by pro- 
fane authors and the LXX., xa7a xaveov means at the appointed time. 
Job v. 26. Is. Ix. 22. In the New Testament ἐν xwed is substituted 
in its place. ee is used to denote the period of the Messiah’s 
advent, Mark i. 15. Luke xxi. 8, and that, by the settled decree of 
God, Christ appeared at a particular time, is declared in Gal. iv. 4; 
ete, 20:, Heb. ix. 26. Accordingly, Cicumenius correctly ob- 
serves: Κατὰ XOLCOVs EVXALCOVs xa meoonxov7a καὶ πξεοωρισμένον. We 
construe it therefore with ἀπέθανε. ‘There now remains, however, 
nothing else for the second ἔτυ but to unite it with ἀσεβῶν, which, 
however, in consequence of the intermediate xa7a xavedy, Cannot pos- 
sibly be done. It may be, that Paul having forgotten the ἔτι at the 
commencement, put down the second by an oversight. If this be 
also a supposition we are unwilling to adopt, there is no help for it 
but to consider the word as a gloss. 

V.7. The yae which is here declarative, and not causative, ex- 
presses the vast importance of the fact announced, In the explication 


148 CHAPTER V. V. 7. 


of this sentence, all depends upon the sense given to δίκαιος and dya- 
66s. Even in his time, Jerome (in Epist. 121, ad Algasiam) enume- 
rates five different, and partly heretical interpretations of the passage. 
We could mention a still greater number, and perhaps of more weight, 
but shall select only the most important. In the ordinary use of the 
Greek language, it is certain that d¢xacos and ἀγαθὸς are not precisely 
synonymous, but still, as the meaning of the one may include that of 
the other, they are sometimes used as such. Acxaos properly signi- 
fies equitable, honest. ‘The radical idea is the same with νόμυμος, as 
is observed by Aristotle. Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. i. 6. 8, 5. 14, 
Enev7a δὲ ἔφη 70 μὲν νόμιμον δίχαιον εἶναι. ᾿Αγαθὸς again signifies able, 
excellent, hence γεωργὸς ἀγαθὸς ὦ skilful husbandman. Xenoph. Cy- 
rop.1.5,10. τά πολεμικὰ ἀγαθοὶ, peritus rei militaris,i.5,9. Hence 
the phrases ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ γενέσθαι, ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ εἰπεῖν. This distinction of 
the two words, which is peculiar to classical Greek, cannot have 
place here, we must, therefore, consult the Hellenistic. ‘That dialect 
would permit us to regard δίκαιος as signifying one irreprehensible 
in the eye of the law, and ἀγαθὸς one perfectly good. So Gatacker 
in this passage. It is, however, too subtle a distinction; besides that 
in the Old Testament δίκαιος often signifies holy, and stands here 
opposed to the ἁμαξ7ωλὸς of the 8th verse. Another expedient, ac- 
cordingly, has been adopted by Origen, Jerome, Erasmus in his 
Commentary, Luther, Melancthon, and Bugenhagen. [It consists in 
taking either the two words δικαίον and daydov, or at least the former 
of them as neuter nouns. Origen: Est enim amor vite tantus, ut 
etiam cum justa causa mortis advenerit, vix unusquisque mortem pa- 
tienter accipiat. Justa autem eausa mortis videtur cum nature legi 
defertur. ‘The same author applies the ἀγαθὸς to our Saviour, for 
whom unquestionably the martyrs dared to die. ‘The close connec- 
tion, however, in which the words stand with the masculine duae7u- 
205 forbids either the one or other to be considered as neuter. More- 
over, according to this view, the antithesis between δίκαιος and ἀγαθὸς 
is lost, which has led the Syriac interpreter arbitrarily to change the 
text, and translate as if instead of δίχαιος» there stood ἀἄδεχος; in which 
he has been followed by the Arabian. Grotius inconsiderately lends 
the aid of his authority to this groundless alteration, and quotes as a 
parallel passage the sentiment of Seneea: Succurram perituro, sed ut 
Ipse non peream, nisi si futurus ero magni hominis aut magne rei 
merces. It helps usas little, with Findeisen (Com. Theoll. ed. Velth. 
et Rup. t. iv.) and Schleusner, to cut the knot, take δίκαιος in the 
sense of worthy, and supplying θανάτου, force out in this manner the 
meaning of godless or wicked. <A great multitude of expositors, in 
utter despair, have given up the antithesis altogether, regard δύχαιος 
and ἀγαθὸς as identieal, and having interpreted raya, perchance however, ᾿ 
and set it in Opposition to μόλις, bring out the following meaning: 
“Scarcely for a good man will one die; perchance however, one 
might dare to die for a good man.”’ So Ambrose, Jerome, Erasmus 
in his Paraphrase, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Limborch, and others. The 


CHAPTER V. V. 7. 149 


very structure of the sentence, however, involves an objection to this 
view, for cov ἀγαθοῦ Seems purposely to be placed before τάχα; to 
mark its antithesis with ime δικαίου. It may also well be objected 
that it makes the Apostle first enunciate a sentiment with great em- 
phasis, and then again render it weak and insipid; as Jerome says: 
Pendulo gradu sententiam temperat. ‘There is therefore no alterna- 
tive but to have recourse to a finer verbal distinction between δίκαιος 
and ἀγαθὸς, of which Cocceius, Bengel, and Seb. Schmid appear to 
have had some presentiment, and which Heumann in Latin, and Ra- 
phelius in Greek, sought to establish upon philological grounds. 
(Heum. in Bibl. Bremensis class. 4, Fascic. 2. Raphelius in Annot. 
ad ἢ.. 1.) The words von in Hebrew, ἀγαθὸς in Greek, and bonus 
in Latin, involve the idea of beneficence as the chief element of their 
meaning. In Hebrew this idea is easily derivable from that of Jove, 
kindness, which is the primary sense of 10n. ‘That that word be- 
tokens a higher degree of the quality than p1¥, may be inferred from 
the practice of the LXX. who translate it ὅσιος, Ps. iv. 3. The 
‘meaning beneficence is peculiarly prominent in a passage of the 
Talmudie Tract. Pirke Avoth, c. 5,§ 10. ‘There are four classes 
of men: the one say, what is my own is my own, and what is yours 
is yours. M232 NID ΠῚ, this is the way of the middle class. ‘The 
others say, what is mine is thine, and what is thine is mine, ΚΝ 
Ὁ» nao πὶ. This is the way of the populace. But he who says, 
what is mine is thine, and let what is thine be thine, is a pious man, 
von. Whereas, he who says, what is thine is mine, and let what is 
mine be mine, is yw, a villain.’”? In Rabbinical Hebrew, the proper 
meaning of s710M is beneficentia, beneficium. In the New ‘Testa- 
ment, in like manner, ἀγαθὸς, at Matt. xx. 15, may be understood in 
the sense of beneficent, for ὀφθαλμὸς novyeds, which is opposed to it, 
in the Hebrew and in the Apocrypha signifies an evil eye, Prov. 
xxvill. 22. In classical Greek, this sense is also exemplified in the 
following passages. Kugov ἀναχκαλοῦνγες Tov ebeeyét yyy Tov avdea Tov ἀγα- 
θόν. AXlian. Var. Histor. 1. 111. c. 17. Tagar7ivors ἐγενεῖο ἀγαθὸς Aexv- 
tas. ᾿Αγαθὸς in the same sense is used in inscriptions. See Gruter, 
Corpus inscrip. Rom. p. 491, i. 846, 8. Phavorinus, accordingly, 
defines the word ἀγαθὸς, 6 Ta xara χαξιζόμενος ἀφθόνως. With respect 
to the Latin bonus, that it is used in the same sense, is shown by the 
following passages. Cicero, De offic. 1. ili. c. 15: Si vir bonus is est, 
qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemeni, recte justum virum, bonum 
non facile reperiemus. Id: De nat. Deor. 1. ii. Jupiter optimus dic- 
tus est, id est, beneficentissimus. Publius Syrus says: In nullum 
avarus bonus est, in se pessimus. As to the use of dvxacos in Greek, 
Xenophon in his Sympos. 6. iv. 5. 42, declares the δίχαιου to be 
such, οἷς γὰρ μάλισ7α 7a παξόντα ἀρχεῖ, ἥκιστα τῶν ἀλλοήρίων ὀξέγονγαι. 
And in De Giconomia, he designates δίκαιον the slaves who did not 
steal. On the other hand, the same author, both in the Symposion and 
in the book de Agesilao, c. ii. 5. 8, puts ἐλευθέφιος in Opposition to dexacos, 
which ἐλευθέξιος there signifies as much as ἀγαθὸς does with St. Paul. 


150 CHAPTER V. V. 8, 9, 10. 


In the latter place it is said: χεήμασί ye μὴν od μόνον δικαίως, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
ἐλευθερίως Evento. τῷ μὴν δικαίῳ ἀρκεῖν ἡγόυμενος 7ὸ ἐᾷν 7a ἀλλότεξια», 
τῷ δὲ ἐλευθεξίω καὶ Tov ἑαυτοῦ προσωφεληέον είναι. Perhaps also the 
article before ἀγαθὸς is here significant, and stands for the pronoun, 
quasi, his benefactor. So the Spanish version, which, like the Vul- 
gate, sometimes comments instead of translating: ‘* Por su bien 
hechor.”” Comp. Hombergk Parerga Sacra, p. 204. 

Tayo. Theodoret, tows, which, in classical Greek is often coupled 
with it; τάχ᾽ ἂν ἴσως. Τολμᾷν is used in reference to any enterprise 
which demands a struggle, to dare, be bold enough. Eurip. Alees- 
tis: “Hatxos τ᾽ ὧν κἀπὶ téeu’ ἥκων βίου, οὐκ ἠθέλησας; οὐδ᾽ ἐτόλμησας θανεῖν 
τοῦ σοὺ πρὸ παιδός. ‘The xai prefixed elevates the sense of the verb. 
So Polybius: mepi δὲ τῶν διαδεξαμένων πῶς καὶ τολμᾶτε μνημονενεῦν. Ham- 
mond, in his paraphrase, gives the meaning as follows: Hine quantus 
ejus fuerit amor, intelligere est,quod inter homines pro viro quopiam 
beneficentissimo aliquis forte vite periculum adeat, at qui pro viro 
etiam justissimo de vita periclitari velit, egerrime inveniatur. Sadol. 
In quibus verbis unum uni, justus impio, bonus hosti redditur. 

V.8. While among men there is thus none who will die for the 
innocent, and not many who will die for a benefactor, the holy one 
submits to death for sinners, for those who had offended against God 
himself. Συνιστάναι, see chapter iii. 5. ‘The word ἁμαξγωλὸς involves 
the idea of that alienation—the ἔχθρα of the 10th verse—of man from 
God, which has been produced by sin. “trie may signify, in favo- 
rem et commodum alicujus, and does so in John x. 15, ‘Tit. i. 14, 
where Christ’s death is spoken of; but it may likewise signify loco, 
synonymously with dvi, in which sense it is also used with refer- 
ence to the same subject, 1 Tim. ii, 6. Comp. Ecclesiasticus xxix. 
15. Xen. Hist. ii. 4, 15: Πεοειπὼν δὲ ὃ ᾿Αγησίλαος, ὅστις παφδέχου τὸ 
ἐπιπιχὸν xat ὅπλα; καὶ ἄνδρα δόκιμον, ore ἐξέσταν αὐτῷ μὴ στξατεύεσθαυ; 
ἐποίησεν, οὕτω ταῦτω ξυντόμως πράττεσθαι; ὥσπερ ἀν τις τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ 
ἀποθανούμενον πξοθύμως ζητοίη. Hence also the verb ὑπεξαποθνήσχειυν. 
The author of the Epistle to Diognetus: ἐπεὶ δὲ πεπλήξωτο μὲν ἡ Quem 
τέρα ἀδικία καὶ τελείως πεφανέρωτο ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς «+ . κόλασις καὶ θάνωτος 
προσεδοκᾶτο. ἤλθε δὲ ὁ χαιξὺς, ὃν θεὸς πϑόεθετο λοιπὸν PavEegwoat τὴν éav- 
τοὺ χεηστότητα καὶ δύναμιν ὡς.εὑπεξ βαλλούσης φυλανθρωπίας μία ἀγάπη... 
οὐκ ἐμίσησεν ἡμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἐπώσατο; οὐδὲ ἐμνησικάκησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐμακξοθύμησεν; 
ἠνέσχετο, λέγων αὐτὸς» τὰς ἡμετέφξας ἁμαρτίας ἀνεδέξατο" αὐτὸς τὸν ὑδιον 
υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο, λύτεον ὑπὲς τῶν χακῷν; τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδύκων, τὸν 
ἄφθαρτον brie τῶν θνητῶν. 

V. 9,10. ‘The Apostle here gives a popular view of the relation in 
which man stands towards God, by a reference to the analogous re- 
lations which subsist between man and man. Such popular repre- 
sentations, however, must always rest upon a basis of objective truth. 
It was a noble demonstration of God’s love, that while men were all 
involved in a situation of revolt from him, he suffered Christ to 
appear among them, who, in order to break the power of evil, took 
upon himself the consequences of sin, even death and all its pains. 


CHAPTER v. v. 9, 10. 151 


Hence, now that he has passed into ἃ state of glory, when believing 
Christians have laid hold of him, and, by his Spirit, have entered 
anew into fellowship with God, well may the Apostle say, that they 
have no more reason to be afraid, lest the sufferings of the present 
should prove an obstacle to their future blessedness. 

ἐχθροὶ ὄντες. It is vain to wish to discriminate whether the 
enmity of men towards God, or of God towards men, is here de- 
signed. In the expressions of the Apostle, both in this and other 
passages, we can find no ground for such a distinction, seeing, that 
in point of fact, the two things are correlative, so that the one cannot 
be supposed without the other. Only we must be upon our guard, 
when transferring this ἔχθεα, as well as all other passions, even that 
of love, from man to the Divine Being, to abstract every mixture of 
human sinfulness. Freed from this element, there remains only the 
idea of an objective antithesis, a spiritual repulsion of evil. If it be 
impossible, in cases where the relations of man to man are spoken of, 
to avoid supposing the words ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες, (used of Pilate and He- 
rod, Luke xxiii. 12,) to imply that the enmity is mutual, it will be 
equally impossible to do so here. Not that we would thereby deny, 
that sometimes it may be the Apostle’s intention to bring more into 
view the one side, the sense of alienation from, and variance with 
God, on the part of the sinner; as seems to be the case, Col. i. 21. 
Even that sentiment, however, presupposes opposition on the part of 
God to man, which is evinced by the consciousness of guilt, of which 
God and not man is the author. Moreover, the scriptural doctrine of 
the dey of God itself involves essentially the idea of the ἔχθεα, which 
is manifested by the dey, in the sense of guilt and the numerous 
evils connected with it. On the other hand, the ἔχθεα cot duaerwrov 
εἰς Θεὸν is implied in the idea of sin, as a more negative or more po- 
sitive contrariety to the holy law and will of God, Rom. vi. 7, James 
iv. 4. "Theodoret: οἱ ἐχθεοὶ δὴ τῶν ἐντολὼν avg μηδὲ DraxNxdadty γενό- 
μένου ὥσπερ φίλου οἱ ὑπαχηχκοότεςς Clem. Alex. Strom. |. ili. χαὺ μὴ ce 
καϑάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐδενὺ μὲν ἀντίχεισϑαν λέγομεν τὸν Θεὸν; οὐδὲ EXSEov 
εύναυ τινός. πάντων γὰρ κτίστης: καὶ οὐδέν ἐστι τὸν ὑποστάντων 6 μὴ ϑέλευ. 
Φαμὲν δὲ αὐτῷ ἐχϑοοὺς εἰναυ τοὺς ἀπειϑεῖς καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ 
πορευομένους. Pelagius: Inimici actibus non natura, reconciliati au- 
tem quia conciliati naturaliter fueramus. Melancthon takes occasion 
to observe: Estque consolatio necessaria his, qui cum sint sanctifi-_ 
eati, tamen vident se adhuc habere reliquias peccati, et obnoxios esse 
terroribus et pavoribus, item immergi asperrimis calamitatibus, et 
luctantur cum diffidentia. 

ἐν τῇ ξωῇ αὐτοῦ. ‘The Apostle uniformly considers the life of the 
Saviour as divided into two sections. ‘That holy one, who, as being 
free from sin, was also not subject to evil, becomes a member of the 
race which had made themselves guilty of it, bears all its conse- 
quences, suffering of every kind, and death itself. But having passed 
triumphantly through these ἡμέραν τῆς σαρκὸς, Heb. v. 7, the same per- 
sonage enters the state of glory, where he no longer lives, as he once 


152 CHAPTER V. V. 11, 12. 


did here below, in any manner connected with ἁμαρτία or Savaros, 
but solely in relationship with God. Rom. vi. 10, Phil. 11. 6. This 
period commences with the resurrection. 

V.11. At this verse, the Apostle returns to verse 2d. By what 
has hitherto been said, it has been established, that the disciples of 
Christ, amidst afflictions of every kind, have a title to glory and exult, 
it being indisputably certain, from what they have already experi- 
enced of God’s compassion, that everlasting bliss is secured to them. 

Καυχώμενου scil. ἐσμὲν. Εν τῷ Θεῷ᾽ because his love towards Chris- 
tians is the basis of all their glory. Calvin: Nam dum gloriamur 
Deum esse nostrum, quidquid fingi vel optari potest bonorum conse- 
quitur et, ex hoc fonte manat. Non enim supremum tantum bonorum 
omnium est Deus, sed summam quoque et singulos partes in se con- 
linens. 

di οὔ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν. The νῦν stands opposed to that 
everlasting glory, in the prospect of which, the Christian, surrounded 
by calamities, rejoices, to the ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοὺ, ν. 2d. ‘The 
pledge of the δόξα is the present καταλλαγή- The redemption, which 
is already finished and complete, is the surest guarantee, that those 
who believingly appropriate it, shall also be partakers of heavenly 
bliss. 


PAR Tei Te 


THE NOBLE EFFECTS OF THE REDEMPTION, CONTEMPLATED BY MEANS 
OF A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE GENERAL CONDITION OF MANKIND, 
AS INVOLVED IN THE RUIN ENTAILED UPON THEM BY ADAM, AND 
THEIR CONDITION, AS PARTAKERS OF THAT GLORY WHICH IS DE- 
RIVED FROM CHRIST. v. 12—2l1. ‘ 


Ver. 12. Tur Apostle had begun at the first verse to paint the 
effects of God’s great scheme of salvation. He now essays to make 
these more apparent, by showing how they comprehend the whole 
race, and bring about an entirely new period in the existence of man- 
kind. Accordingly, setting up the one who fell, as the head of sin- 
ful humanity, he contrasts him with the restorer, as head of humanity 
now regenerated, and received afresh into sonship with God; and 
shows in what manner the fall of the first Adam is related to the re- 
storation effected by the second. ‘The conclusion, verse 21, coin- 
cides with the conclusion of the first half of the chapter, verse 11, the 
Apostle merely re-affirming as true of the whole of mankind, and with - 
reference to the state of fall, what he had there declared without 
taking in these regards. Hence also, we may perceive how this 
second part of the 5th chapter is properly only an elucidation, and 
exposition on a grander scale, of the first. The observation of Ben- 


CHAPTER V. V. 12. 153 


gel is therefore just: Non tam digressionem facit Apostolus quam 
regressum..... Ex justificatione homo demum respiciens doctrinam 
capit de origine mali. Chrysostom: Καθάπες ot τῶν ἱατρὼν ἀξιστοι 
τὴν ῥίζαν ἀεὶ πολυπξαγμονοῦσυ τῶν νοσημάτων, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν ἔρχονταν τὴν 
πηγὴν τοῦ κακοῦ" οὕτω χαὶ ὃ μακάξιος ἸΤαῦλος" εἰπὼν xae ὅτι ἐδικαιώθη- 
μεν, καὶ δείξας ἀπὸ Tov πατριάρχου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ Ex τοὺ ἀπὸ- 
Pavey τὸν Xevoror, οὐδὲ γὰς ἂν ἀπέθανεν εἰ μὴ ἔμελλε δυκαιοῦν, κατασχευάζευ 
λοιπὸν καὶ ἑτέξωθεν τὰ διὰ τούτων ἀποδειχθέντα; καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων συνισ- 
τὰς τὸ πξοκείμενον; τουτέστιν; ἀπὸ τοῦ θανάτου xai τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Calvin 
observes with great precision: Non possumus clarius perspicere quid 
habeamus in Christo, quam ubi nobis demonstratum fuerit quid per- 
diderimus in Adamo. Διὰ τοῦτο, 7. 6. proinde, it follows from what 
has been said. ‘The Hebrew j39 serves in the same way to draw 
inferences. 

onze. This particle gives mse to much difficulty, as there is a 
doubt whether the consequence it infers is expressed at all, and if so, 
where it is to be sought. ‘The majority of commentators make a 
parenthesis from verse 13 to verse 17 inclusive, and contend that at 
the 18th the proposition is continued. So Luther, Melancthon, Gro- 
tius, Bengel, and others. So extended a parenthesis, however, is 
highly improbable, not to mention that dea οὖν in the 18th verse far 
too obviously appears to mark an inference, drawn from the imme- 
diately preceding context, and by no means the resumption of a pro- 
position, which after such an interval has disappeared from the mind. 
Others, Cocceius, Elsner, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and Stolz, after dca 
τοῦτο supply ἐλάβομεν τὴν καταλλαγὴν from the foregoing verse, and 
form the conclusion of the words succeeding ὥσπεφ. ‘Thus Elsner: 
Itaque reconciliationem accepimus, quemadmodum per unum homi- 
nem peceatum in mundum introit. It is difficult to perceive, how- 
ever, why at the commencement of his proposition, the Apostle 
should have omitted so many words, and these so necessary for the 
right understanding of what he says. But even were we to supply 
them, still no complete comparison would arise, inasmuch as it is 
only by contrasting the single points in the work of redemption and 
the fall, that their parallelism can be made apparent. Others attempt 
to evade the difficulty by an inversion. ‘They assume that xac οὕτως 
in verse 12, should properly stand for of7 xa. So Clericus, Wolf, 
and others. Such a transposition, however, is quite unusual, and 
moreover when admitted, subverts what is the great scope of the 
Apostle—the comparison of Adam with Christ. Much more natural 


*Itis the constant practice of the best physicians to explore the root of 
their patient’s disease, and thus come to the source of the evil; and this is 
what the blessed Apostle does here. For having said that we were justified, 
and having shown it from the example of the patriarch, and from the Holy 
Spirit, and from the death of Christ, who would not have died but to accom- 
plish this end, he forthwith proceeds to bring proofs of the same thing from 
another quarter, and establishes his proposition by arguments drawn from 
the opposite things, viz. from death and sin. 


154 CHAPTER V. v. 12. 


is the construction of Erasmus and Beza, who consider the xac before 
διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας as the particle to the conclusion. But against this 
also we have to object, that it is far too evident that the Apostle de- 
signed to set in apposition Adam and Christ, and that by the construc- 
tion proposed, the words 8¢ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, which, as appears from the 
train of thought pursued through the whole of the latter section of 
the chapter, must be emphatic, lose all their significance. As all 
these modes of placing the conclusion, are thus inadmissible, we 
have no resource but to suppose an epanorthosis or an anantapodoton. 
The acute Calvin adopts the first. According to this view, we have 
to imagine that the Apostle had written as far as the 15th verse in 
the consciousness of his protasis, but that being there reminded by 
the expression ὃς ἐστὶ τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος of his intention to compare 
Adam and Christ, it strikes his glowing mind, that it is not enough 
merely to point out an equality between the two, and he gives asud- 
den turn to the proposition. ‘This explanation has much in its favour, 
but there appears to be still more to recommend an anantapodoton. 
The only question is, where does the Apostle cease to retain the 
premises in his thoughts. Even Origen supposes an anantapodoton, 
but he strangely seeks the ground of it, not in a negligence of lan- 
guage, but in the design, on the part of the Apostle, not to weaken 
in Christians the zeal for sanctification, by subjoining the counter- 
part of Christ. Erasmus in his paraphrase, Castalio and others, 
supply the conclusion immediately at the end of the 12th verse. 
Erasmus gives it in these words: Ita per unum Christum, in quo 
renascimur omnes per fidem, innocentia inducta est. It is more pro- 
bable, however, that the Apostle does not lose sight of his premises 
till he comes to ὃς ἐστὶ τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. The parenthesis of verse 
13, 14, might cause him to forget that he had begun his comparison 
with ὥσπερ, although he still remembered that he was drawing one. 
At the close of that parenthesis, in his own lively manner, he at once 
fully enunciates it, and following a Hebrew construction, instead of 
καὶ οὔτος connects it by the relative ὃς. ‘The conclusion, accordingly, 
in point of sense, is contained in this appended proposition. Such 
is the view of the difficult construction, which possesses the greatest 
verisimilitude, and is to be preferred to what is otherwise allowable, 
the adoption of an epanorthosis. We now pass to the consideration 
of the single words. The subject of the Apostle is the entrance of 
sin into the world, and its spread: εἰσήλδε and διῆλϑεν. Now, inas- 
much as an opposition, though not expressed, is here implied to a 
state devoid of sin, it is impossible to distinguish, and vain to make 
a question, whether the ἁμαρτία means the peccatum habituale or 
actuale, ὃ. 6. whether the propensity to sin, or the manifestation of that 
propensity. ‘I'he whole dominion of sin is intended. Along with sin, 
and dependent upon it, appeared the ϑάνατοςς Comp. Ecclesiasticus, 
XXV. 24, “And γυναιχὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας, καὺ δὲ αὐτὴν ἀποδνήσκομεν πάν- 
τες. Θάνατος has, by Pelagius and others, been understood to signify 
spiritual misery, and by the great majority, mere bodily death. But 


CHAPTER V. Vv. 12. 155 


both interpretations are too confined, as appears evident when we 
consider to what ϑάνατος and ἀποϑνήσκξιν are opposed in v. 15, 17,21. 
In the 15th they are opposed to ἡ χάρις and ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι. In the 
17th and 21st to ἡ χάρις and ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Now to look only to the 
latter ἡ 207 αἰώνιος expresses much more than the mere prolongation 
of existence after death, which certainly is also implied in it. ‘The 
words ζωὴ and ϑάνατος along with the cognate verbs, although appear- 
ing in very various applications, are most clearly explained, when we 
suppose the following views to have lain at the basis of them. God 
is the ζωὴ ἀνώνιος, 1 John v. 20, or the φὼς, 1 Johni.5; Jam. 1. 7. 
Beings made in the image of God have true life only in fellowship 
with him. Wherever this life is absent, there is ϑάνατος. Accordingly, 
the idea of 2 comprehends holiness and bliss, that of Savdzos sin 
and misery. Now as both the ζωὴ and the ϑάνατος manifest them- 
selves sometimes in different degrees, sometimes under different 
aspects, the words acquire a variety of significations. ‘The highest 
grade of the 2.7 is the life which the redeemed live with the Saviour 
in the glorious βασιλεῖα τῶν odpavav. Viewed on this side, 2.7 denotes 
continued existence after death, communion with God, and blessed- 
ness, of which each is implied in the other. ‘The highest grade of the 
life out of God, 7. 6. of the Scdvaros, is external exclusion from com- 
munion with the members of the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Regarded in this | 
vieW, ϑάνατος comprehends bodily death, existence in the realm of | 
spirits, full sense of guilt and misery, each of which is also involved , 
in the other. ‘This explication of the two words we shall hereafter ἡ 
establish with greater exactness. Now, although in other passages 
in which he employs the terms, the Apostle may only intend one or 
other of these significations, still it might be anticipated, that in that 
before us, where the object is to delineate in contrast the domains of 
sin and light in their full extent, ζωὴ and Savaros are to be taken in 
their largest sense. Where there is no sin, there does the ζωὴ reign 
in its whole expansion. Where sin exists, there the ϑάνατος appears 
in all its multifarious modifications, and the consequences which it 
entails. Even the text, Gen. ii. 17, is applied by the Rabbins to 
death, in its most comprehensive import. Sepher Ikkarim, b. 4, ec. 
41. ‘The ΠῚ is repeated, in order to show ἬΝ AN) wan ANN,” 
It now remains to explain ἐφ᾽ @ πάντες ἥμαξτον, whereby it will 
likewise be brought to light in what way the διελθεῖν, (which Luther- 
renders happily, by a German word, meaning fo penetrate, De Wette, 
less happily, fo go over,) has taken place. For reasons which shall 
be produced forthwith, we understand ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in the sense of the He- 
brew Ws inasmuch as, because that. So that the Apostle adduces 
the fact of men being sinners as the reason why death also manifested 
itself among them. ‘The thought, accordingly, lies in this, that éuae- 
zia and ϑάνατος are correlatives, and stand necessarily connected to- 
gether as cause and effect, so that neither can be supposed without 
the other. Now, in consequence of the reciprocity between evil and 
sin, as the latter came upon all, the former necessarily did the same, 


156 CHAPTER V. Vv. 12. 


With respect to the word ἁμαφξτάνειν, it may either indicate more 
the commencement of sin, 7. 6, the becoming sinful or guilty, in 
which sense it corresponds in the LXX. with the Hebrew 0Wx, or 
it may rather denote stn in its course. ‘The latter is the meaning 
most commentators adopt, from the supposition, that the justice of 
God is better vindicated when δανάτος is reckoned only the conse- 
quence and punishment of the sins of the individual. Hence ‘Theo- 
doret: οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὴν τοῦ προπάτορος ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν 
ἕχαστος δέχεται τοῦ Savarov τὸν ὅρον. Whether, in a doctrinal point 
of view, any advantage be really gained in this manner, seeing it must 
still be acknowledged, that without Christ man is destitute of all 
ability to conquer the inborn propensity to sin, we do not at present 
inquire, but merely observe, that a comparison of the 18th and 19th 
verses affords ground for preferring the former of the two interpreta- 
tions. For, while it is there left entirely out of view, what part the 
individual himself may have contributed, the sinfulness of the entire 
race is represented as standing in immediate and causal connection 
with the sin of the first man. Now, if from these passages, we judge 
of the present, it might perhaps be questioned, whether doctrinal 
partialities have not introduced something foreign into the Apostle’s 
train of thought, when it is contended, that by the ἥμαρτον, the self- 
determining principle in man is brought into view. More consenta- 
neous with the circle of ideas, which the Apostle here developes, is 
the interpretation given by the Reformers, and with certain modifica- 
tions, thus stated by Usteri: (Entwickelung des Paulinishen Lehr- 
begriffes, 5. 18.) ““ Of any other connection than that of the identity 
of human nature, and consequently the transference of its sinfulness 
to all posterity, no intimation is given. For even the statement, v. 
19, διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπον ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάϑησαν οἱ πολλοὺν 
declares nothing more than that, in the sinfulness of Adam, which 
first manifested itself as actual and deliberate sin, by the transgression 
of a positive commandment, the sinfulness of the human nature en- 
tire was brought to light, and that in the sin of the first of the race, 
the sinfulness of all the rest was already implied, and by it brought 
about and necessitated.”” Augustine: (De verbis Dom. Sermo. 14.) 

Quod in Adam fuit culpe non nature, nobis propagatis jam factum 
est nature. , 

Having thus found the import of the text, we now subjoin some 
discussions upon particular points. And first, with respect to the 
sense of Savaros. As in general, the Old Testament comprehends, at 
least in germ, the truths of the New, it should not appear extraor- 
dinary, that the peculiar meaning of certain terms in the latter are 
also found in an initial form in the former, and in the apocryphal 
books. D“n, denotes in the Old Testament the aggregate of all good,’ 
ny, of all evil. We have an instance in Moses’ declaration, Deut. 


* Because each man for his own, and not for the sin of Adam, comes under 
the decree of death. 


CHAPTER V. V. 12. 157 


xxx. 15, ὈΠΠΠ AS ΟΥΤ 7295 ΩΣ TIST, PIT ASN) AT PR) DN NN, 
which phrase returns, Jer. xxi. 8, Ecclesiasticus, xv. 17. This life 
man finds in following the Divine commands, and hence in holiness. 
Prov. xi. 19, ‘As righteousness tendeth to life, so he that pursueth 
evil, pursueth it to his own death.” Wisd. of Sol. xv. 3: To γὰρ 
ἐπίστασθαί σε ὁλόκληξος διχαιοσύνην καὶ εἰδέναι TO χράτος σου ῥίζα ἀθανα- 
sias. Com. Proverbs iv. 13; vi. 23; x. 17; xii. 28. Baruch iv. 1. 
True life is, hence, properly with God, Ps. xxxvi. 9. and in the state 
of saints, after death, so Ps. xvi. 11. Wisdom, v. 15, Atxavov ets τὸν 
αἰῶνα ζῶσι; καὶ ἐν κυξίῳ ὃ proSds αὑτῶν. ‘The blessedness of the good 
in the world to come, is indeed, expressly called Ὁ)» “Ππ, Dan. xii. 
2. We may compare the way in which ἫΝ and wn are used, which, 
as the Dictionaries show, mean in like manner, happiness and misery, 
good and evi/. But, above all, the beautiful passage, Ps: xxxvit 19; 
‘* With thee is the fountain of life, and in thy life shall we see light.” 
We also meet with the expression in the same sense in Philo, with 
whom, however, it is mixed up with Platonic ideas: (De Post. Caini.) 
τοὺς μὲν οὕτως (ἀσεβῶς) ἀποδανόντας ἡ ἀδάνατος ἐχδέξεται ζωὴ; τοὺς δὲ 
ἐχείνους ὃ ἀΐδιος ϑάνατος. Generally, indeed, the practice of de- 
nominating happiness, and more especially spiritual happiness, life, 
and on the other hand, misery, but chiefly that kind of it which 
springs from moral evil, death, together with those more profound 
views, according to which, virtue and felicity are considered as a 
manifestation of the life in God, was borrowed from the east by 
several of the Grecian sages, viz. Pythagoras, Plato, and Heraclitus, 
who speak of a Sdvazos of the soul in this life, and of an ἀναβίωσις in 
the next. See Plato, Gorgias, ed. Heind. s. 156, Annot. Also 
Phedo, ed. Wyttenb. p. 142, 165. The Rabbins also retained this 
use of the words. In the Talmud, Tr. Berachoth, c. 8, the ὉΠ, 
Eccles. ix. 5, is expounded by ΟΡ Σ, and the ὉΠ by Oywr. In 
Ὀ2Δ Vy 5. 20, col. 3, it is written: ND AWN PwIen Awyl Taw 
mwiy wronny. In the work mwsx1nDDn the author, Elias de Widas 
thus speaks, “" He who repents, weeps, and says to his soul PAIN 
7, for he has brought it from the place of life to the place of death. 
All his life long he mourns, w5) mnonw ἡ». We come now to the 
New Testament. Here by almost all the different writers, the words 
δὴν and ἀποδνήσκχειν, ξωὴ and Sdvaros, Cav and vexeds are employed in 
the emphatic metaphorical sense of life in God, and life without God. 
Most commonly, it is true, by John and Paul. Matt. viii. 22; Luke 
x. 28; Luke xv. 32; John v. 24, and many more. 1 John iii. 14; 
2 Cor. ii. 16; Rom. vi. 21, vii. 5, 24, viii. 2, 6; 1 Tim. v. 6; Rom. 
vii. 9, viii. 18; Eph. v. 14; James i. 15, ii. 17, 20, and numerous 
others. Now Christ is represented as He who brought the true ζωὴ 
to light. But as fellowship with him is first rightly enjoyed in the 
state hereafter, and, consequently, as the δωὴν in its full extent, does 
not commence until that is reached, the life to come, is emphatically 
styled ἡ 7, (see above at v. 10, and below at v. 18,) and more par- 
ticularly ἡ ξωὴ αἰώνιος. According to this view, the life of the believer, 


158 CHAPTER Y. V. 12. 


in the future world, and that in the world that now is, are not spe- 
cifically different, but form a progressive series; and hence Gow, as at 
v. 18 below, and ζωὴ αἰώνιος as at John v. 24, frequently comprehends 
both. Again, on the other hand, with respect to ϑάνατος, should we 
comply with the analogy we have just explained, it would, when 
used antithetically to ζωὴ in the sense of 207% αἰώνιος, denote the life 
of misery and separation from God hereafter. Now, into the 
conceptions formed by the Apostles of the future state, the idea of a 
definite locality always entered as asubstratum. ‘lhe Φωὴ was in the 
oveavos OF in the ἄνω ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. Hence it is not an improbable 
opinion, to which Dr. Bretschneider in particular, has in modern 
times called the attention, viz. that the Apostles conceived the Old 
‘Testament Scheol to be the place into which all are conducted, who 
do not receive life by fellowship with Christ. It must be confessed, 
however, when they speak upon the subject, the idea of locality is 
left in the shade, and it is that of the condition itself which pre- 
dominates. ‘This condition is one of misery, but more of a negative 
kind arising from deprivation, Rev. xx. 6 and 14, xxi. 8, we read 
of a Savaros δεύτερος; and thatseems to denote the condition of proper 
and positive wretchedness, which follows the period of existence in 
the Scheol. 

‘The χαὺ οὕτως can be understood in two ways. Οὕτως may be 
equivalent to ὡσαύτως, and then the similarity expressed between the 
subject of the second with that of the first member of the verse will 
consist in this, that as the first man constituted the ground for the 
existence of sin and death, so did he also for their propagation. Thus 
Seb. Schmid. Or the comparison may perhaps lie in this, that, as 
in the case of Adam, sin was the condition of evil, it is so likewise 
in all that follow him. On that supposition, it ought to be translated: 
“And after the same manner sin passed upon all, seeing that all are 
sinners.”’ It is, however, far more conformable to the use of the 
language, especially as οὕτως is preceded by xai, to consider it as the 
particula consecutionis. So Erasmus: Atque ita factum est. In this 
view it refers to the intimate connection of all the individuals with 
the head of the species, which in every member of the race, neces- 
sarily entails that discord manifesting itself inwardly as sin and out- 
wardly as evil. ‘Ihe same thing is also very pointedly expressed 
by διῆλθεν. ‘The meaning, accordingly, is: “ In consequence of sin 
and evil being brought forth in the instance of the first man, they 
have also passed upon all who belong to the race.”’ 

Ep’ ᾧ is in the old Latin version rendered in quo; and it was 
upon that translation that Augustine founded his doctrine of im- 
putation. Accordingly, it has been retained by the great majority 
of Catholic expositors, and among the Reformers by Beza, Calixt, ° 
Erasmus, Schmidt, Calov, Raphelius and others. Augustine: (Op. 
imp. 6. Jul. Pel. 1. v. 6. 12.) Fuerunt enim omnes ratione seminis 
in lumbis Adam, quando damnatus est, et ideo sine illis damnatus 
non est; quemadmodum fuerunt Israelite in lumbis Abrahe quando 


CHAPTER V. v. 12. 159 


decimatus est, Ep. ad Heb. 7. Also (De pecc. mer. et rem. 1. 3, ¢. 
7,): In Adam omnes tune peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura, ila 
insita vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhue omnes ille unus fuerunt. So 
likewise Origen and Ambrose. Augustine proceeded upon the realist 
view, that God did only once create, placing the whole of each 
Species in the first individual, so that all subsequent existence is 
nothing more than the manifestation and development of what has a 
previous being. Inasmuch then as at the first, the man Adam was 
when he fell, both individual and species, the species also fell in him. 
Acute expositions of this view, and a philosophical application of the 
Aristotelian principles de universalibus in re to the doctrine of impu- 
tation, are to be found among the schoolmen, e. g. Anselm and Odo- 
ardus, in De peccato originali. ‘There are, however, strong objec- 
tions to such an interpretation of ἐφ᾽ @: Ist, The antecedent dvSeumos 
is much too remote. So early as by Augustine it was remarked, 
(Contra duas Epp. Pell. 1. iv. c. 4.) that one might be tempted to 
refer the relative to the preceding substantive ϑάνατος. ‘The sense 
would then, however, be obscure. 2d, When ἐπὶ governs the dative, 
it has not the meaning of 7m but upon. And hence in the passage 
cited by Origen and Augustine as parallel, Heb. vii. 10, there stands 
not ἐπὶ but ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ. Grotius suggests another meaning of ἐπὶ, viz. 
through or by occasion a This is agreeable to the usage of the 
language, (566 Luke v. 5; 1x. 48,) but owing to the false reference 
of the relative cannot be sustained; it is, moreover, founded by Gro- 
tius on his peculiar interpretation of ἥμαρτον, which see below. 
Cocceius understands it in the sense of with, together with, and 
quotes as authorities in’ ἐμοὺ μευρακίῳ τοῦτο γέγονεν. ἐτελεύτησεν Ext 
δυσὶ παισίν. ‘There, however, it is merely a particle denoting time, 
which it cannot be in the declaration of Paul. It would be easier to 
defend the rendering of it post, after the precedent of Adam. See 
Matthias’ Gram. In which case, the clause would either express 
the Pelagian view of sin, viz. That it is the imitation of Adam’s 
transgression, (as if there could be imitation without similarity of dis- 
position,) or it is idle and nugatory. Upon these grounds we have 
interpreted ἐφ᾽ 6 in the sense of ws1 following the example of the 
Syriac, Theodoret, Erasmus, Vatablus, Luther, Calvin, and many 
others. It has the same meaning, 2 Cor. v. 4; Phil. ili. 12. As 
has probably also even ἐν &, Rom. viii. 3; Heb. ii. 18. 

There is still another way of understanding ἥμαρτον, upon which 
we have not as yet touched. Chrysostom, Theophylact and Grotius, 
take it metonymically for ‘* have suffered the penalty of sin,”’ ‘are 
treated as sinners.” Chrysostom: ’Exetvov πεσόντος, καὶ οἱ μὴ φαγόν- 
τες ἀπὸ Tov ξύλου; γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνου πάντες θνητοί. Now, there can be 
no doubt, that in many a connection it might be justifiable to interpret 
ἁμαρτάνειν in this manner; here, however, there is the objection 


* After his fall, even they who eat not of the tree have all through him be- 
come mortal. 


160 CHAPTER V. v. 12. 


against it, that ἁμαρτία in a different sense occurs before, to which 
juaetov obviously refers, 

In conclusion, it deserves also to be taken into consideration, that 
when the Apostle here teaches that all evil has its source in sin, and 
all sin in that of the author of the human race, he by no means pro- 
pounds an entirely new doctrine. It is substantially contained in the 
3d chapter of Genesis, and is frequently declared in the Apocrypha, 
Wisd. of Sol. ii. 23, 24, Ecclesus. xxv. 24. It has likewise been 
handed down in the exegetical tradition of the Rabbins, among whom, 
for example, are to be found such sentiments as the following. The 
Targum, on the text, Ecclesiastes vii. 29. ‘God hath made man 
upright,’’ observes: ‘* But the serpent and the woman seduced him, 
and caused death to be brought upon him and all the inhabitants of 
the earth.”” And on Ruth iv. 22, when relating that David’s father 
was also called wm) it adds, ‘* Jesse lived many days, until the coun- 
sel, which the serpent gave to Eve, was called to mind before God. 
In consequence of this counsel all men upon the earth are obnoxious 
to death.’’ ‘To the same purpose are the words of R. Shemtob (died 
an. 1293.) in the Book Sepher Haemunoth. ‘In their mystical 
commentaries our doctor says, that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, 
their descendants would not have been infected with the propensity 
to evil; their form would have remained perfect like that of the angels, 
and they would have continued for ever in the world, subject neither 
to death nor change.”’ Bereschith Rabba, a mystical commentary 
upon Genesis from an early period of the middle ages, par. 12, 14. 
‘Although created perfect, yet when the first man sinned, all was 
perverted, and shall not return to order until the Messiah come.”’ R. 
Mosche of the Trana in the 15th cent. (Beth Elohim, f. 105. e. 1.) 
“The whole world sinned the same sin with Adam; for he was the 
whole world.’ R. Jacob: (Neve Schalom Tract 9. c. 5. fol. 160, 2.) 
‘“‘As the first man was the one that sinned, so shall the Messiah be 
the one to do sin away.’ R. Mayer Ben Gabbai in Avodath Hakko- 
desch, f. 62, says: ‘‘Adam by his fall opened a fountain of impurity, so 
that uncleanness and poison have overspread the whole world.”? On 
the opinions of the Rabbins, see Snabelii Ameenitates Typice et 
Emblematice, the first treatise, Sommeri Theologia Soharica, p. 23 
and 24. Schiéttgen on this passage, and Wetstein on chap. v. 14. 
On the other hand, however, there were numerous learned Jews who 
contended, on the contrary, that not only the death, but likewise the 
fall of Adam, was the inevitable consequence of the constitution of 
his nature, and that God implants a principle of evil in every indi- 
vidual. See Vitringa, Observ. Sacre, 1. 3. ch. 8 and 9. Siisskind 
in the Magazin fiir Dogma. und Moral. st. 13. Bartolocci, Bibl. _ 
Magna Rabbinica, v. ii. p. 47,sqq. Ina peculiarly glaring manner is 
the doctrine expressed in the passage, Bereschith Rabba, par. 28, p. 
30. Col. 3, where God is made to say, ‘It distresses me that I 
have created them with the Yetzer Hara, (the propensity to evil.) 
Had I not done so, they would not have rebelled against me.” It 


CHAPTER νον. 12, 13. 161 


is to the views of these Hebrew scholars, that Vitringa and Siisskind 
appeal in support of their opinion, that the Apostle did not derive his 
doctrine from the creed of Jewish theologians. It must not be over- 
looked, however, that the Rabbins, who contended that God implants 
evil in every man at birth, do not on that account suppose it uncon- 
nected with Adam; they merely speak as Creatians. Calvin in his 
Institutions expresses himself in a way equally obscure, endeavouring, 
along with the doctrine of Creatianism, to demonstrate upon this 
subject a connection between our sinfulness and that of our first pa- 
rent. ‘The opinion, on the contrary, that even the first man was 
created with the N1Nn ν᾽" is not to be found among orthodox Jews, 
but was only held by Emanatistical Kabalists, who look upon evil as 
a negation; or those imbued with platonism, who give it an origin in 
matter, and consequently also consider it as a negation. We may 
instance Moses Maimon., R. Jehuda Levita, and others. Comp. the 
learned treatise of Ammon, Nava Opusce. De vestigiis theol. Jud; in 
Ep. ad Rom. where other authorities are likewise quoted. 

V. 13. This and the following verse constitute an explanatory 
supplement, and may be regarded as parenthetical. ‘The yae shows 
that the writer means to justify some previous statement. ‘The near- 
est proposition is, That by virtue of the connection between auaeria 
and θάνατος, (of which latter a single aspect only is brought to view, 
viz. the transition, by bodily dissolution, into the realm of spirits,) 
as cause and effect, in the case of the first man, the same had passed 
upon all. In confirmation of this, what does the Apostle say? He 
speaks of a twofold duaeravew, the one tei τῷ ὁμοιώματιὶ τῆς παξαβά- 
σεως Adau, the other taking place μὴ ὄντος νόμου. The first, accord- 
ingly, is such as is committed contrary to a distinct command. With 
respect to the latter, he affirms that, in a certain sense of the word, 


it is not imputable. Notwithstanding of this, however, death has 


exercised its dominion over the persons who were guilty of it. If 
then, from these premises, we draw a conclusion, it can scarcely be 
any other than.'That θάνατος is the natural consequence of the sinful- 
ness which has been transmitted from the Founder to all the indivi- 
duals of the species, precisely as is expressed in ver. 17. Now that 
is a conclusion which obviously goes to confirm the foregoing pro- 
position; for it proves That the general basis of the θάνατος and duoe- 
τία lies in the author of the race. And this it is here the chief design 
of the Apostle to show, in order thereby to establish, as an antistro- 
phe, How, in like manner, the general basis of the 207 and Sdexadwors 
lies in Christ. Usteri, Entwick. des Paul. Lehrbeg. 5. 26: * Sin is 
not imputed so long as man has no law, that is, Man does not feel 
the evil consequence of his sin as a punishment, so long as he does 
not recognize sin to be what it is; he is a réxvov éeyys, God’s law 
of nature connecting together evil and sin, goes of itself into execu- 
tion againsthim. So then it may be said ὅσου ἀνόμως ἥμαφτον, ἀνόμως 
καὶ ἀπολοῦνται. Not that this condition is at all better than the oppo- 


5116 ONE, ὅσου ἐν νόμω ἥμαξτον dud νόμου χρυθήσονται. For, on the one 
2] 


/ 


162 CHAPTER V. V. 13. 


hand, excepting only the state of childhood, it is founded upon a 
total obduracy adegaous, and upon the other it constitutes what is pro- 
perly the βασιλεία τοῦ θάνατου, Rom. v. 14, where the sum of all evil 
has fixed its seat, and exercises unbounded lordship. ‘This non-im- 
putation, however, does by no means do away guilt, for the Apostle 
has beforehand expressly proved that men are ἀναπολόγητοι. But in 
the state of sinfulness now become habitual, guilt does not reach the 
individual so much as the historical whole.”’ 

We might here also, perhaps, take exception, if not to the thing 
proved, at least to the mode in which the Apostle proves it, viz. inas- 
much as he at once assumes as granted, that without a positive pre- 
cept, there can be no ἐλλογεῦσθαι, although he has already asserted in 
chapter second, that the heathen shall be judged according to the 
νόμος yeanros ἐν τῇ xaedcq. It cannot be denied, however, that in 
proportion to the degree in which this inward νόμος has been oblite- 
rated, the special responsibility of the individual (provided always 
he has not himself been guilty of blunting his moral sense) is dimin- 
ished. And what idea can we form of the ἀνοχὴν chap. ill. 26, with 
which God overlooked the yedvo τῆς ἀγνοίας, if it do not presuppose 
a withdrawal of special accountability? Quite analogous is the decla- 
ration of Christ, John xv. 22. Ei μὴ ἦλθον καὶ ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς ἁμαρτίαν 
οὐκ εἶχον. Although, therefore, it may be said, that man theoretically, 
or as belonging to the world of intelligences, can and must be judged 
according to the entire law, and so condemned as absolutely guilty; 
still, however, as regards his historical existence, and considering 
him as belonging to the actual world, we can deem him only ina 
limited degree responsible, Mat. xi. 21. In this way might we find 
a satisfactory side from which to consider the declaration of the 
Apostle. This view of the passage, Schott, in his Opuse. t. 1, has 
defended with great doctrinal impartiality. Still, however, it may be 
questioned, whether we ought not to prefer, to the one stated, another 
exposition which at least creates no difficulties with reference to the 
declaration of the Apostle we have now discussed. It might be said, 
that he here anticipates verse 20th. He imagines to himself an 
opponent starting the objection, that although all men may be re- 
garded as sinners, yet as sin can only exist where there is a positive 
law, it cannot be ascribed to those who lived prior to Moses. In 
opposition to this, however, the Apostle has now shown, that even 
over these persons, the θάνατος had reigned; and hence, in so far sin 
must necessarily be presumed in them, even although it might have 
arisen in contrariety only to an inward law. ‘That the outward law 
had been added, merely to subserve the tavyrwous τῆς ἁμαῤτίας. In 
this manner Photius, and several others among the ancients, whom 
Chrysostom mentions and confutes, and among the moderns, Schétt- : 
gen and Koppe, expound the passage. ‘The words of Photius are as 
follows: Εἰπὼν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες juaerov, ἵνα μὴ τις εἰπῇ» καὶ πὼς ἣν ἅμαρ- 
TELY νόμου μὴ ὄντος; οὗτος γὰξ σὺ ἀνωτέξω ἔφης OTL οὗ οὐκ ἔστυ νόμος; οὐδὲ 


CHAPTER V. V. 13. 163 


παράβασις. παξαβάσεως δὲ μὴ οὔσης οὐδὲ ἁμαρτία δηλονότι. πὼς οὖν διῆλθεν 
6 θάνατος εἰς πάντας, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες Nuaetov; ἵνα οὖν μὴ ἢ τις λέγων τοῦτο, 
παξαλαβὼν Aveo τὴν ἀπορίαν, καὶ Pyotr, ὅτι ἣν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου" ἐπεάτ- 
TETO γὰρ; καὶ τὸ πραττόμενον οὐκ ἔστι μὴ γενέσθαι. Cicumenius adds: 
dea δὲ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν τοῦ Αποστόλου, ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν λοιπὸν ἀδυκεῦσθαιυ» 
δὲ ἄλλον ἀποθνήσκοντες» εἶπεν, ἁμαφτία ἣν ἐν κόσμῳ, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐλογίζετο. 
τουγαξοῦν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸν᾽ Αδὰμ; ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν ἁμαδτίαν ἀποθνήσχομεν.ἢ 
As far as the language is concerned, there is certainly nothing to ob- 
ject to this explanation, besides, that the thought thus expressed is 
by no means strange to the Apostle. ‘The structure and position of 
the verse, however, will by no means suit such an interpretation. It 
is presumed that the Apostle means to refute a silent objection, viz. 
that anterior to Moses there was no sin. But looking to the pro- 
position, as it stands, it has not at all the semblance of, a refutation. 
Far more does the exegetical feeling constrain us to consider this 
first proposition as the major, and the 2d ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ tan. (δὲν atqui) 
as the minor, to which the daa’ forms an antithetic conclusion. Indeed, 
without an affirmative particle, such as ὄντως, or a comparative one, 
such as ὡσαύτως, it seems impossible to agree to that explanation. 
To this it must be added, that as the Apostle, verse 12, speaks of 
the mutual relation of the Savaros and ἀμαρτῖα, and both are here 
again introduced, the train of thought would rather prepare us to 
expect some announcement with respect to their connection, and 
about the universality of the ἁμαρτία. ‘The more so, that such an 
objection, as is supposed on the part of the Jew, has no great proba- 
bility, inasmuch as it would tend to prove that the Gentiles, not being 
Yyvouot, Were hence not avanoardyyror, whereas the Jew considered 
them as obnoxious to the xaraxpyua. And in fine, were any one to 
attempt to discredit the sense we have proposed, it might, perhaps, 
be possible on doctrinal grounds to elude it in the present instance. 
Not so, however, in verse 17, where it is plainly expressed. In 
fact, a large majority of expositors, even thosé who, from doctrinal 
partialities, would have wished to decide otherwise, although they 
have not viewed the proposition in the same precise light as we, have 
yet concluded from its entire disposition, that the Apostle means to 
point out our ϑάνατος as fundamentally rooted in that of Adam. So 


* To what the Apostle had said about all having sinned, some might per- 
haps reply, How could sin be committed when there was nolaw? Even you 
yourself declare in the sequel, that where there is no law neither is there 
transgression, and it is clear that without transgression there can be no sin. 
How then has death passed upon all, for that all have sinned? That no one 
might speak thus, he takes up and solves the difficulty, declaring that.sin 
existed even before the law, for it was committed, and what is done can never 
be undone. 

¢ Behold the caution of the Apostle. Lest we should deem ourselves un- 
justly treated in being subjected to death for another, he says, that sin was 
in the world, although it was not imputed. Hence it is not on account of 
Adam alone that we die, but likewise for sin. 


164 CHAPTER V. νυ. 13, 14. 


Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grot., Limb., Bengel, Christ. Schmid, 
Michaelis, and many others. According to their view, the imputa- 
tion is of an outward, juridical kind; which, however, the observation 
of Limborch is by no means suflicient to justify: Non fuit quidem 
gratiosa Dei actio, sed severa, attamen neutiquam injusta. Non enim 
injustum est, nocentem, cui alias fortassis parciturus sis, tractare ut 
nocentem, ac punire quia natus est ex parente magis nocente et pe- 
nam insigniter merito. Quite erroneous is the interpretation of those, 
Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Melancthon, Beza, Cornel. a 
Lapide, and others, who imagine that St. Paul here speaks of the 
guilt of infants. The train of thought obviously contradicts such an 
application, as the judicious Calvin justly observes, and hence these 
interpreters see themselves obliged to have recouse to the most forced 
explanation of the terms. Augustine, Melancthon, and Theodoret, 
take the ἄχρι in the larger sense of the word, as equivalent to the 
Hebrew ‘y, in which it includes the term in quo, and thus denotes 
the period from Adam to Christ. Augustine, Ep. 157, ad Hilarium, 
expounds: Quianec lex data per Moisen potuit regnum mortis auferre 
quod sola abstulit gratia. Origen, Thos. Aquinas, and in occasional 
passages, Augustine, think the words μὴ ὄντος νόμου refer to the moral 
law, of which children are unconscious. Not only, however, do 
these expositions deviate from the natural sense of the language, but 
they make it difficult to see the connection between the 13th and 14th 
verses. Cornelius a Lapide has expressed it most clearly in the fol- 
lowing terms: “‘ You will object, that where there is no law, there 
can be no sin. As the men, however, in the interval between Adam 
and Moses died. it is obvious that they must necessarily have been 
sinners. And in case you may perchance insinuate that this is merely 
a proof of their peccata actualia, and not of the peccatum originale, I 
appeal to children, who although they had not offended against any 
positive Divine law, were also during that period subject to death.” 
So also Beza. 

We have still to notice another expedient of rather a violent kind, 
which many have adopted for removing the difficulties of this text. 
Instead of its common signification, they take ἐλλογεῶν in the sense 
of to regard, take to heart. So Luther, in his ‘Translation, Heu- 
mann and Camerarius, who has these words: Cum aperte propone- 
retur lex, clarum fuit peccatum, cum tacite, peccatum minus com- 
punxit conscientiam. Heumann gives the connection thus: ** The 
Jew might ask, how then can Adam’s posterity have sinned, when 
the law of Moses was not yet given? Paul replies, For that very 
reason they sinned the more thoughtlessly, and therefore death also 
reigned.”” Against this we have to say, that ἐλλογεῖν has no such 
meaning, and that it would be contrary to the use of the Greek lan- , 
guage, to consider ἀλλὰ as an inferential particle. 

V.14. ἐβασίλευσεν. Photius: Τοὺτ tore’ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν πολλὴν ἐχεά- 
τήσε; KOU εἰς ἔννομον ἐξουσίαν ελλογίσθη αὐτοῦ ἢ τυξαννὶς, τῷ TE χρόνῳ σεμ- 


- 


CHAPTER V. v. 14. 165 


νυνομένη, καὶ τοῖς ἡμῷν ἁμαρτήμασι κρατυνομένη. ὃ Thus in Wisd. of 
Sol. i. 14, οὐχ Yoru ἄδου βασύλειον ἐπὶ γῆς. So likewise, to denote the 
powerful efficacy of the θανατος, the Rabbins use the verb bow. (See 
Schéttgen) Usteri, s. 18: ‘* Upon all who did not possess a positive 
law, death has come, as a natural consequence, according to that 
διχαίωμα tov Θεοῦ, Rom. 1. 32, ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ako θανά- 
του εἰσὶν, or the connection which God has established between sin 
and evil. ‘This condition, to distinguish it from that in which death 
might be considered as the positive penalty for transgressing the 
law, Paul here denominates a βασιλεία τοῦ Savarov'”’ 

ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαφτήσαντας. Several Latin codices omit the py, 
though Augustine confesses that in no Greek one is this done. Sem- 
ler, who so often violently changes the text, judges that the Latin 
ought here also to be followed. Probably, the difficulty of interpre- 
tation, which is occasioned by the presence of μὴ, and of which even 
Origen and Ambrose complained, led to its commission. 

ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς naeaBacews’ Addu. Ἐπὶ conjoined with a sub- 
stantive in the dative, is used in place of the Hebrew 5, for the pur- 
pose of forming adverbs. ‘Thus, the LXX., at Ps. xvi. 9, translate 
M039, ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι, which is used in the same way, Acts v.14. In 
Hebrew there would have stood in this place the substantive n7D, 
which, in Daniel x. 16, is translated literally, ὡς ὁμοίωσις υἱοῦ avOeu- 
mov. The expression, accordingly, means ὁμοίως τῷ "Addu nagaBarte. 
As this transgression of Adam’s is put upon a parallel with that of 
the law of Moses, the aspect in which it is here to be contemplated, 
is his having broken a distinct and positive Divine law. ‘The gene- 
ralization, therefore, of Grotius is incorrect, who says: Solent graves 
transgressiones comparari transgressioni Adami, Hos. vi.7. Equally 
unnatural is the application of the words made by those who think 
that in these two verses children are spoken of. According to them, 
children had not sinned like Adam, inasmuch, as even at birth they 
are already infected with sin and its guilt. Augustine, (Ep. 157, ad 
Hilar.) Quia in semet ipsis, cum jam nati essent, nec ratione adhuc 
uterentur, qua ille utebatur quando peccavit, nec preceptum accepis- 
sent, quod ille transgressus est, sed solo originali vitio tenerentur 
obstricti. 

ὅς ἐστι τύπος tov μέλλοντος. Paul still bore in mind that he was 
drawing a comparison between the Saviour and the fallen progenitor 
of the human race, which comparison he had begun with donee. The 
parenthesis of verses 12th and 13th had caused him in some degree 
to deviate from it. Here, without remembering to connect it asa 
conclusion with doce, he simply affirms the counterpart, and annexes 
it not by xai οὔτος, but, according to a Hebrew construction, by the 


* That is, lorded it with mighty power, and its tyranny was considered as 
a legitimate authority, being sanctioned by time, and confirmed by our trans- 
gressions. 


166 CHAPTER V. V. 14, 15. 


relative ὅς. ΤῸ μέλλοντος we must supply ᾿Αδάμ" as in the same way, 
1 Cor. xv. v. 45, Christ is denominated ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδάμ. 

τύπος from τύπω, a copy taken by impression, John xx. 25, τύπος 
τῶν ἥλων" and, hence, metaphorically an image or type. ‘The Apostle 
had set out with the design of showing what extent of salvation and 
blessing had been procured for men by Christ. With this view, 
he had described the extent of ruin emanating from the original founder 
of the human race. Now, with that before his mind, the thought 
naturally suggested itself, that this First head of the race might be 
regarded as an image of the Second. Usteri: (5. 121,) “Adam and 
Christ, each the emanating point of a general and opposite life, the 
two poles, as it were, of humanity, that fly from each other, and 
attract the mass, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. Even Rabbinical theologians 
advert to a certain relation betwixt Adam and the Messias. In the 
book Tseror Hamor, Sect. Bereschith, it is said, “ The secret of 
Adam is the secret of the Messiah.”” The author of Neve Schalom 
has, moreover, Ὁ. ix. c. 5,8, the remarkable statement: ** The last 
Adam is the Messias, as it is written, He will be greater than Moses. 
It is also true, as is declared, He will be higher than the angels that 
serve God. ‘Then shall be taken away the ancient sin which ocea- 
sioned death. In his time shall be the resurrection of the dead. 
God intended Adam to be immortal, but sin brought death. Thus 
the divine purpose has been accomplished in the King Messias, as 
in his counterpart, the first Adam.’’ Untenable are the explications 
of others, who, as Bengel and Homberg, supply yeovov, and make 
the sense, ‘‘ He was the type of the time to come,”’ for it is evident 
from verse 15th, that the Apostle has spoken of a comparison between 
Adam and Christ; or who take μέλλων absolutely, like ὁ tezouevos, to 
signify the Messias, which it would be impossible to establish by 
parallel passages; or, finally, who supply an indefinite neuter, ‘‘ the 
type of future events,’”’ like Erasmus and Christ. Schmid. Against 
which exposition there lies the same objection as against that of 
Bengel. 

V. 15. Scarcely has the Apostle expressed how Adam represented 
in outline what was done by the great Redeemer, than the thought 
occurs that the work of Christ is unspeakably greater. Accordingly, 
he now seeks to show, by a comparison of the diametrically opposite 
influences respectively exercised by these two personages, that while 
they exhibit great equality, in respect of what is positive, they still 
differ very widely in degree. With much precision Bengel remarks: 
Adam et Christus sécindum rationes contrarias conveniunt in posi- 
tivo, differunt in comparativo. Bucubstence De indncnee proceeding 
from Adam is sin_and destruction; that from Christ, holiness_and 
felicity. The equality in the positive, consists in this, that both. 
kingdoms originate in a single person, the first Adam and the second, 
being each the head and founder of an entire race. The comparative 
difference, according to v. 16, is, that when Adam fell, he had before 
him a pure, uncontaminated progeny, upon which his sin operated 


CHAPTER V. Vv. 15. 167 


so perniciously as to constitute them all sinners. On the other hand, 
Christ has the entire race, with its innumerable sinners, before him, 
and, by his perfect obedience, not only does away the whole conse- 
quences of that original sin, but restores afresh the δικαίωσις ζωῆς 2. 6. 
the justification which brings along with it a perfect, divine, and 
blessed life. See on this subject the acute treatise of Siisskind, in 
Flatt’s Magazin fiir Dogmatick und Moral, Bd. xiii. s. 86, and the 
admirable Paraphrase of Usteri, 5. 122. Photius says well: “ there 
are three things to be noticed in the subjects here brought into com- 
parison, a certain resemblance, a certain opposition, and an excess in 
the point of similarity. ‘The opposition lies between sin and sinless- 
ness, enmity to God, and reconciliation with him, condemnation and 
justification, ruin, offence, and death, and salvation, life, and resur- 
rection. ‘These are opposite. ‘The similarity again consists in that, 
as by one man these evils fell upon all, so also by one man came the 
blessings upon all. And as to the excess, it is, that whereas with 
regard to the evils, the many co-operated with the one in order to 
become partakers, with respect to the blessings, this was not the case; 
but the free gift came by Christ singly and alone, so that even as re- 
gards the point in which the two agree, there is excess and super- 
abundance upon the one side. Moreover, not only were the evils 
introduced by Adam taken away by Christ, but the better things 
substituted in their place. 

In this fifteenth verse, the Apostle does not as yet state the ine- 
quality in the case, but only directs our attention to the fact, that ὦ 
priort grace might be expected to operate in a far richer way than 
sin. Incapable of deducing any clear meaning from these words, 
some commentators make them an interrogation. By that means, 
however, ἀλλὰ would lose its true signification, and become a mere 
formula transeundi. So Schéttgen and Heumann. Others conjoin 
with the negative some sort of limitation, such as xara πάντα τρόπον" 
but to say nothing of other objections, the subsequent εἰ yae is a suf- 
ficient one of itself. παράπτωμα. Beza: Sic dicitur ipsa Adami 
ruina, unde manat ἡ auaerca, id est, tum reatus ille, tum corruptio in 
omnium hominum natura herens. Χάρισμα. ‘This term is chosen 
by Paul in place of δὲχαίωμα, which would have been the strict doc- 
trinal expression. ‘The yde is a note of explication, fo wit. Οἱ πολ- 
aot. The article here has a retrospective reference, meaning the vast 
multitude of mankind. Itis hence to be considered not as compara- 
tive, but absolute, according to Augustine’s observation (I. vi. ὁ. 12. 
Cont. Jul.): Multi constituti sunt peccatores, 7. 6. omnes, qui revera 
sunt multi. ‘The Father here alludes to the impropriety there is in 
Pelagius appealing to this passage, and in the Socinians to this word, 
in order to prove that all men have not been sinners, but those only 
who imitated Adam. ᾿Απέθανον. It is manifest, both from the an- 
tithesis and the connection, that here ἀπέθανον is not used simply in 
the limited signification of corporeal death, but comprehends the 
θάνατος in its widest extent, viz. the sense of guilt, physical evil, and 


168 CHAPTER νον 15, 16. 


the future consequences of sin. “H ydeus τοῦ Θεοῦ xai ἡ Saeed, is best 
taken as a Hendyadis for 7 δωρεὰ τῆς χάξιτος, Which is but another 
name for the δικαίωμα obtained through Christ. ᾿Εν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ 
ἐνὸς ἀνδρώπου. ‘The article τῇ here shows that the genitive τοὺ ἑνὸς 
ἀνδοώπου is to be construed not with dweca but with χάριτι. ‘That 
genitive, however, is susceptible of different significations. Xdecs 
may mean the favour in which Christ stands with the Father, and 
by which he obtains the love of God for us. ‘This is its most im- 
probable signification. Or the genitive may here denote the subject, 
the grace which Christ manifests towards us. Such is the opinion 
entertained by the majority of commentators, but who yet regard 
Christ only as the channel of communication. Thomas Aquinas: 
Sic enim a Deo gratia in multos effunditur ut eam per Christum 
accipiant. Or in fine, the genitive may be considered objectively. 
The grace of God, which through and in the redemption of Christ 
is imparted to us. ‘his interpretation of Erasmus coincides best 
with the train of thought. «Ἑνὸς dSeéxov. Paul calls Christ dvSeu- 
mos, because in respect of his pure humanity he was the founder of a 
new race; and as the chief point of similitude between him and 
Adam is, that from both, as progenitors, there emanated respectively, 
blessings on the one hand and misery on the other, he expressly an- 
nexes the εἴς. 

V. 16. That which the Apostle had only generally premised in the 
foregoing verse, he now states with greater exactness, viz. in what con- 
sists the formal difference between the effects entailed by Adam and 
those by Christ upon their respective offspring. Erasmus: Siquidem 
pernicies sic est orta, ut unius peccatum in omnes posteros propaga- 
retur, atque ita tandem omnes redderet obnoxios; contra, Dei beneficium 
sic confertur, ut universa omnium delicta jam agglomerata, jam con- 
firmata, semel Christi morte aboleantur, neque solum aboleantur ad- 
missa, Verum etiam justitia gratis conferatur. Chrysostom: Kat τί ποτέ 
ἐστι τοῦτο TO λεγόμενον; OTL τὸν μὲν ϑάνατον καὶ TO xaTaxeLua ἴσχυσεν 
ἁμαφτία μία εἰσενεγκεῖν" ἡ δὲ χάξις οὐ τὴν μίαν ἐκείνην ἀμαφτίαν ἀνεῖλε 
μόνον. ἀλλὰ χαὶ τὰς μετ᾽ ἐκείνην ἐπεισελϑδούσας.ἢ Highly expressive 
are the words of Pelagius: Quia non invenit Adam multam justitiam, 
quam suo exemplo destrueret, Christus autem gratia suai multorum 
peccata dissolvit. From this clause, Melancthon beautifully points 
to the consoling truth, that in the individual, grace uniformly brings 
to the contest with sin not only equal but superior forces, so as both 
to annihilate its consequences, ‘and establish an opposite reign. 
Nothing but a misapprehension of the whole context could have led 
some, as 6. g. Heumann, to make this sentence interrogative, quasi: 
“And is it not the same with the gift of grace as it is with sin?”’ 

The Codices D. E. F. G. the Syriac, the Vulgate and the Latin: 


* What means this saying? It is, that one sin availed to introduce death 
and judgment, but grace not merely took away that single transgression, but 
those also which followed after it. 


CHAPTER V. V. 16. 169 


fathers, all reau ἁμαρτήματος in place of ἁμαξτήσαντος. And a variety 
of evidence, both internal and external, support this reading. The 
meaning then becomes, ‘* We are not, however, to suppose as if the 
redemption came in consequence of one transgression.” ‘The clause 
would be self-contained, and διὰ πολλῶν ἁμαφτησάντων becomes the 
antithetic member. But to say nothing of other reasons, such a use 
of οὐχ ὡς would be too anomalous, inasmuch as we uniformly find it 
employed in drawing a comparison, and followed by a corresponding 
οὕτω. It is more probable, that ἁμάφτημα has been interpolated, partly 
to increase the analogy with magaxrwua in verses 15 and 17, partly 
in consequence of the subsequent ἐξ ἑνὸς» to which it is necessary to 
supply παξαπτώματος, and that duagrjoavros, the more difficult read- 
ing, is nevertheless the more correct. After auaerjoarros there fails 
a substantive answering to the ddéezua in the comparison. ‘The viva- 
city of Paul’s mind may have led to its omission. Expositors supply 
either something perfectly indefinite, as Beza and Piscator: illud 
quod introiit, or as Michaelis the ““ consequence of sin,’ or more 
definitely, *‘ that precise consequence of sin here opposed to the ya- 
φισμα, Which is xecua.’’ So Wolf and others. This is the most 
natural way, seeing that τὸ yde χεῦμα only resumes the former subject 
of the Apostle’s thoughts. Accordingly, there are here four points 
of contrast, Ist, the agents; the one transgressing, the other fulfilling 
the law. 2d, The actions performed; that of the former, which was 
a single sin, that of the latter, which concerned numerous sins. 86, 
The consequences of what they have done; in the one ease, the ob- 
jective sentence of condemnation, xecuo, which embraces all connected 
with Adam, and is manifested by the sense of guilt, and in the other 
case, the objective forgiveness, χάρισμα, of all united with Christ, 
which appears subjectively, as cheerful confidence towards and peace 
with God. In fine, the issue of that sentence of condemnation, viz. 
objective damnation, which, subjectively, displays itself as misery in 
all who are involved with the first sinner, κατάκριμα, and the issue 
of the gracious gift of forgiveness, even the objective pardon of be- 
lievers δικαίωμα, manifested in the subject as perfect holiness, and 
hence also bliss. In the interpretation of these statements, we must 
take special care to discriminate between subjective and objective. 
These cannot indeed be separated in the concrete; for man has nothing 
subjectively divine, but what he derives from him who is so ob- 
jectively, and what God says with respect to man is like all divine 
volition, an operation. His word is deed.- What he wills with re- 
ference to us is an effect within us. In the language of Paul, who 
always speaks from the life, from direct intuition, these things are 
not unnaturally disjoined. ‘The expositors who seized exclusively 
the one or the other view, have never been able to arrive at perfect 
perspicuity. Kecua is therefore the objective sentence of rejection, 
which, in virtue of the holiness entering into the conception of the 
divine character, God must pronounce upon all who coincide in the 
bias of their will with Adam. The discovery or revelation of this 
22 


170 CHAPTER V. v. 16,17. 


sentence of rejection on the part of God, is subjectively the sense of 
sin in man. Rejection issues in damnation, which is manifested in 
and upon man as misery. 

τὸ μὲν yae κεὺμα ἐξ ἑνὸς. "To the ἑνὸς we must not here supply 
ἀνθρώπου, as is done in the Atthiopic version, and by Louis de Dieu. 
For πολλὰ παξαπτώματα, which immediately follows, is contrasted 

with it. Besides, when man was mentioned at the 12th verse as a 
sinner, διὰ and not ἐξ, was the preposition made use of. It would be 
better to supply xaganrauaros, and regard ἑνὸς as the genitive mascu- 
line, and then to consider πολλῶν as in the same case and gender, 
which is what Le Dieu proposes. In defence of this, we might ap- 
peal to the δὲ ἑνὸς Gpaetnoavtos, OF in v. 17, to the τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς Maeantw- 
ματι. ‘The meaning would thus be left the same, and only the point 
of comparison slightly modified. Bengel: unus lapsus, unius hominis, 
multi lapsus, multorum. ‘The ἐξ has here another signification, than 
in the 2x ἴῃ ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων. Itstates the cause, by. Michae- 
lis: in consequence of sin. 

εἰς xaraxecua. The verb ἐγένετο is to be supplied. The εἰς» as in 
Hebrew, shows what a thing becomes. ‘The xazaxecvew is the effect 
of the xecvew, wherever wickedness exists. 1 Cor. 11. 32. 

Δικαίωμα denotes objectively the act of justifying, subjectively the 
condition of being obedient to the law, 2. e. perfect holiness, which 
condition, in respect of the objective announcement, is the beginning, 
and in respect of the subjective realization, is the end of redemption. 
In Baruch ii. 17 and 18, διχαίωμα and δικανοσύνη stand parallel to 
each other in the sense of obedience to the law. At the 18th verse, 
below, we have instead of it, δικαίωσις Guys, justification which 
brings divine hfe with it. This justification is wrought out by the 
δωξεὰ διχαιοσύνης. 

V. 17 Corresponds with the 15th, inasmuch as it expresses 
generally, how it might have been expected from divine grace, that 
its efiicacy would be more powerful than that of sin. But whereas, 
at v. 16, the sinner’s state was described more objectively, 2. 6. in his 
relation to the divine holiness, or according as he must appear in the 
eyes of God, here the Apostle rather describes him subjectively, or as 
he is in himself, ὁ. e. his misery, and at once places in juxtaposition 
the blessedness of the man who is, and the wretchedness of him who 
is not redeemed. Calvin beautifully paints this contrast of the two 
kingdoms, entered the one by birth, the other by regeneration: Ut 
misera peccati hereditate potiaris, satis est esse hominem, residet 
enim in carne et sanguine; ut Christi justitia fruaris, fidelem esse ne-- 
cessarium est, quia fide acquiritur ejus consortium. 

εβασύλευσεν ὃ θάνατος. ‘There is elevation in the thought of Bengel: 
Sermo preteriti temporis ex ceconomia gratie respicit in cconomiam ° 
peccati, ut mox regnabunt futurum ex ceconomia peccati prospicit 
in economiam vite et vite perennis. 

πεξισσείαν τῆς xaevtos. Wherein this consists, is expressed by the 
dweea τῆς δικαιοσύνης, Which immediately follows. By fellowship 


CHAPTER V. v. 17, 18. 171 


with Christ, man becomes a partaker of the πνεῦμα and thereby of 
the δικαιοσύνην which subjective δικαιοσύνη is the effect of acceptance 
of the objective announcement of it. This δικαιοσύνη is subjectively 
the 2a7 of God in man; its issue is yet to come ineternity. See Com. 
on v. 12, John iv. 14. See also verse 18, the 2.7, v. 19, the fut. 
κατασταθήσονταυ, V. 21, εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, Chap. vi. 21, τὸ τέλος ζωὴ 
αἰώνιος. Hence it is that the Apostle uses the future βασυλεύουσι. 
The βασιλεύειν of Christians in the life to come denotes the higher 
degree of perfection in power to which, with their forerunner Christ, 
they shall be raised, John xvii, 24, Matth. xix. 28, 2 Tim. ii. 12, 
Heb. vi. 20. The parallelism is not strictly observed, in as far as in 
this place the subject is not the bliss, but the redeemed who partake 
of it. Chrysostom: Ἰτολλῷ yae πλείονα ὧν ὀφείλομεν χατέβαλεν 6 Χεισ- 
τὸς, καὶ τοσούτῳ πίλείονο ὅσῳ πρὸς ῥανίδα pexedy πέλαγος ἄπείξον. Μὴ 
τοίνυν ἀμφύβαλλε, ἀνϑξωπε, τοσοῦτον πλοῦτον ὁρὼν wWyaSar, μηδὲ ζήτευ 
πῶς ὁ σπινδὴξ ἐκεῖνος TOV ϑανάτου καὶ τῆς ἁμαδτίας EAVSY, τοσαύτης ϑαλάτ- 
τῆς χαξισμάτων ἐπενεχθείσης αὐϑῷ.ἕ 

V.18. With the majority of commentators, as we before stated, 
this verse passes for a continuation of the 12th, and dea for the formula 
of resumption. It is, however, far more natural to consider the deo, 
as here the particle of inference from the preceding context, and to 
suppose that the Apostle, after yielding to the glow of his emotions, 
which urged him to demonstrate how much more powerful had been 
the efficacy of grace than of sin, wished again to insist upon the re- 
semblance which, nevertheless, obtains between the two heads of 
mankind. For by the epanorthosis which he has been developing 
from the 15th verse, it has by no means been denied, that notwith- 
standing the great diversity, in form and substance, there is much 
resemblance between the two subjects in what is positive. The 
genitive ἑνὸς, may be considered, as is done by Clericus and Locke, 
of the neuter gender, but better, in conformity with verse 17th, as of 
the masculine. It is remarkable, that in both clauses, the subject is 
wanting; on which account, the Syrian omits εἰς, before xaraxevua 
and δυκαίωσις, and makes these words the subjects. But the pre- 
ceding context shows that xecua and χάρισμα are to be supplied. 

δικαίωμα is here predicated of Christ in precisely the same sense 
in which at the 16th verse it is ascribed to believers. He realized 
the ideal of holiness. Viewed in the objective aspect, accordingly, 
he satisfied all the demands which the holy God could make; in the 
subjective, he thereby implanted a new principle of life into sinful 
humanity, and originated a new species of it. By entering into fel 
lowship with him, and becoming partakers of his holiness, believers 


* Far more than what we owed was paid by Christ, as much more, as the 
immeasurable ocean exceeds a drop. Doubt not, therefore, O man, when be- 
holding such a treasure of blessings, nor ask how the old spark of death and 
of sin has been extinguished, seeing that such a sea of the gift of grace has 
been poured upon it. 


172 CHAPTER Vv. Vv. 19. 


likewise attain to the condition of the δικαίωμα here called δικαίωσιυς. 
The ζωῆς is genitivus effectus, so however, as that we cannot sepa- 
rate the effect, even in thought, from its ground in the concrete. In 
this instance also Paul probably uses 27 in the more comprehensive 
sense, which we explained at verse 12th, 2. 6. as including the perfect 
and divine life in eternity. So also, hereafter, in verse 21, εἰς ζωὴν 
αἰώνιον. 

V.19. The Apostle repeats the statement, giving it at the same 
time a turn which brings more prominently forward the subjective 
relation of man to the fall and the redemption. Instead of the more 
general expressions παξάπτωμα and χάρισμα, he chooses the more 
specific of παξακοὴ and ὑπακοή. Παξαχοὴ, when used with regard to 
Adam, may refer either to the transgression of the single command 
not to eat of the forbidden tree, of which he was guilty, or to the 
proud disposition of heart, which made him aspire to autonomy, 
according as we adopt the literal or the symbolical interpretation of 
the 3d chapter of Genesis. Even in the former case, the desire of 
autonomy must still be supposed as the basis of the act of disobedi- 
ence. ‘Thus Augustine: (De pecc. merr. et. rem. ]. 11. 6.19.) Ῥτῶ- 
cedit in voluntate hominis appetitus quidam propriz potestatis, ut fiat 
inobediens per superbiam. The entire holy life of our Saviour, on 
the contrary, is termed ὑπακοὴν inasmuch as holiness is nothing else 
but subjection to the laws of the one only Being who is a law to him- 
self, the αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν. ‘This ὑπακοὴ accordingly embraces in indivisi- 
ble unity, what the Church has split into the obedientia activa and 
obedientia passiva; which things are also inseparable in the concrete. 
The active holiness was the perfect love of the Saviour. This im- 
plied an entrance into the condition of the being who is its object, 
and who needs to be saved. So did the Redeemer, prompted by 
love, come into the present state of men, and take upon himself all 
the consequences of sin which that involves. So did he feel with 
sinners the magnitude of their apostasy and guilt. So did he bear 
the sufferings prepared for him by the sin of the race, which he de- 
signed to deliver from their fall, more especially in his final tortures 
and death, and hence it was that his active obedience required to 
manifest itself in suffering. 

χαθίστασθαν has the sense to be made, to become, 6. g. James iv. 4. 
Interpreters have started the question whether the Apostle here refers 
to the objective purpose and decree of God, or to the subjective being 
made a sinner, and being justified on the part of man. Exclusively, 
as we have already observed at v. 16, neither the one nor the other 
is ever spoken of. Such separations belong to the theocratical expo- 
sitions of doctrine. And, therefore, the only question which can pro- 
perly be made is, which side of the case does the Apostle bring most . 
into the light. In answer to this, it may be said, that χατασταθήσον- 
va. gives greater prominence to the subjective. ‘* Owing to the iden- 
tity of human nature, by means of the inward discord in the mind 
of Adam, with whom the race was involved, sin and its consequences 


CHAPTER V. V. 19, 20. 173 


were entailed upon all. By means of the holiness of the second 
Head of the race, and in virtue of the spiritual communion and one- 
ness of believers with him, the δικαιοσύνη is entailed upon them, 
which shall be still more clearly displayed in the life to come.’’ The 
Apostle, in like manner as at v. 17, chooses the future tense, because 
the δικαίωσις and the ζωὴ, during the present life, are incipient, and 
only reach perfection in the future world. ‘They who cling to the 
objective view, are obliged to translate χαθίστασθαν declarari, which, 
however, is a sense that cannot be defended.. Schleusner indeed in 
his Thesaurus, quotes χαθίστημι from Daniel xiii. 60. (Cod. Chis.) 
as bearing that signification, but it rather means, coarguere. The 
Socinian interpretation, which may be found substantially in Chry- 
sostom and heodoret, which Grotius was the principal means of 
spreading, and of which Whitby has written a minute defence, (De 
imput. div. pecc. Adami, Lond. 1711, ο. 3, p. 47, 544.) takes auae- 
ravew, as formerly at v. 12th, in the metonymical sense, effectus pro 


causa, to become punishable. In the present instance, however, itis } 
liable to the same objection as in that. From the circumstance of / 
οἱ πολλοὶ, and not πάντες being used, it is even more impossible to \ 


infer any thing doctrinal than Matth. xxvi. 28, from the weei πολλῶν 


ἐχχυνόμενον. ‘The very use of the article with πολλοὶ shows that the , 


πάντες are here contrasted in a mass with the one. 

V. 20. Paul had set in opposition the two heads of mankind, and 
the effects which they have respectively produced upon it. He had 
stated two extensive periods in the developement of the species. Now, 
here the question naturally arose; what was the purpose of the eco- 
nomy of the New Testament, if it is the New alone which has 
formed the great epoch of humanity? He answers this question, by 
showing the relation of the Old Testament economy to sin. Beauti- 
ful are here the words of Calvin: Erant quidem naufragi ante legem; 
quia tamen in suo interitu sibi videbantur natare, in profundum de- 
mersi sunt, quo illustrior fieret liberatio, quum inde preter humanum 
sensum emergunt. This author, however, is mistaken, when he 
supposes the present verse expository of the 13th. 

παξευσῆλθεν. ‘Che παξὰ may here be mute, as for example, Philo: 
(de Temul. p. 268.) ἄγνοια μήτε φὼς, μήτε λόγον παξευσελθεῖν ἑῶσαν and 
Polyb. (Hist. ii. 55,3); or it may indicate the secrecy of its incoming, 
or, best of all, according to the translation of Beza: Preterea introiit, 
and of Luther: es ist nebeneinkommen. 

ἵνα. Chrysostom: iva, ἐνταῦθα οὐκ αἰτιὀλογίας πάλιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐχβάσεως 
ἔστιν. Οὐ γὰρ dua τοῦτο ἐδόθη ἵνα πλεονάσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐδόθη μὲν ὥστε μειῶσαι 
καὶ ἀνελεῖν τὸ παράπτωμα. ἐξέβη δὲ τοὐναντίον; οὐ naga τὴν τοῦ νόμου φύσιν, 
ἀλλὰ, maga τὴν τῶν δεξαμένων ῥᾳθυμίαν. So also the majority οἵ Ca- 


* The tahere again points not to the intention but to the event. For it (the 
law) was not given to increase, but that it might diminish and take away sin. 
The very reverse, however, took place, not from the nature of the law, but 
from the sloth of those who received it. 


ἂν 


174 CHAPTER V. Vv. 20, 21. 


tholic interpreters. But it is manifest that (va is here in fact used 
τελιχῶς, for it was the Apostle’s intention to show what was the 
purpose of the law, and all that is requisite is to fix the true meaning 
of πλεονάση. What Paul meant to express by that word, was how 
the law ought to have produced the acknowledgment of sin; by which 
indeed sin itself is increased, inasmuch as its guilt grows with the 
knowledge of him who commits it, and where that exists in a small 
degree, the responsibility appears proportionably diminished. See 
'y. 13. As that, however, is a condition of ἄγνοια or πώξωσις, it re- 
quires to be done away, and hence, the law must bring to a con- 
sciousness of variance with God. It is only after this has existed as 
an interval of transition, that the grace of God can be known. 

‘Yxeeeneeiocevcey. This compound is again used by St. Paul, 
2 Cor. vii. 4, and ὑπεεπλεονάφω, 1'Tim.i.14. Bengel: Victi victo- 
rem vincens, tertius utroque melior est. Hominem vicit peccatum, 
peccatum vicit gratia, ergo gratie vis maxima. Pelagius: Sicut et 
Salvator, ‘cui plus dimittitur amplius diligit,’ manifestata est enim 
quantitas peccati ut sciretur grati# magnitudo, et redderemus com- 
petens debitum charitatis. Augustine in Psalm cii.: Lex ideo data 
est, ut crescente peccato, humiliarentur superbi, humiliati confiteren- 
tur, confessi sanarentur. 

V.21. The Apostle restates what he had already said, v. 17th, 
and concludes the observations, commenced with the 15th verse, by 
contrasting once more, in their grand features, the two domains of 
sin and of grace. Βασιλεύειν has the same meaning as at verse 17th. 
Δικαιοσύνη Should properly stand immediately opposed to ἁμαρτία" 
but this Paul avoids, in order to mark emphatically, how all holiness 
must be traced to its higher source. Here also, as at verse 17th, the 
Apostle brings forward the final issue, in which the whole work of 
the διχαίωσις 15 consummated, even the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 


CHAPTER SIXTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


A new subject commences with this chapter. Persons who clave to the law 
and legal piety, might suppose that, by this doctrine of the ἀπολύτρωσις and 
χάρις, the Apostle forced the subjective moral agency of man too much 
into the shade; and that thus the gospel doctrine of salvation might be 
made auxiliary to sin. Paul now shows the contrary. The χάρις or the 
πνεῦμα, the operative principle in the heart of the Christian incites him to 
sanctification. Even the rite of baptism demonstrates that to be his scope. 
He enters, however, upon a new relation to holiness; and does what is 
right, not because of the outward law and its stern commands, but in con- 
sequence of a new and vital impulse within him. 


DIVISION. 


1. The moral effect of the doctrine of redemption upon the Christian is in- 
crease of holiness, as is shown even by the baptismal rite. V.1—11. 

2. Grace and not the law, leads the Christian to sanctification, which is pro- 
moted by that very circumstance. V.12—19. 

3. Prospect of the final consummation, in which holiness is to be rewarded. 
V. 20—23. 


PA Rui. ς 


THE MORAL EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION UPON THE 
CHRISTIAN IS, INCREASE OF HOLINESS, AS IS SHOWN EVEN BY THE 
BAPTISMAL RITE. v. 1—12. 


V.1. Tuer can be no doubt, if we strictly separate the doctrines 
of justification and sanctification, that here, after the discussion of 
the first, the proper place presents itself for treating the second. But 
it is, as we have already observed, unusual with the Apostle to dis- 
criminate very nicely objective from subjective. We must not, there- 
fore, think of seeking, in a systematic arrangement, the reason of his 
bringing forward, at this place, what we term the doctrine of sanctifi- 
cation. It was, however, natural for him, after having delineated 
the grand and novel scheme of salvation, to recollect the insinuations 
of the legal Judaizer, (c. iii. 8.) who objected to his doctrine of the 
δυκαίωσις and χάρις, that it only served as an encouragement to sin. 


176 CHAPTER VI. v. 1,2. 


This objection he now meets. Calvin justly remarks: Quum huma- 
no sensui παξαδοξώτατον sit quidquid de Christo predicatur, nihil 
novi videri debet si, audita fidei justificatione, caro toties, tanquam 
ad adversos scopulos, impingit. Pergendum est tamen, nec Christus 
ideo supprimendus, quia multis sit in lapidem offensionis et petram 
scandali. Qua enim ratione impiis cedet in ruinam, piis vicissim in 
resurrectionem erit. Sic enim se res habet......in hune finem nos 
justificari, ut deinde vite puritate Deum colamus......Plus quam igitur 
prepostera esset operis Dei inversio, si occasione gratize que nobis 
in Christo offertur peccatum vires colligeret. Neque enim medicina 
morbi, quem extinguit, fomentum est. It would hence be highly 
incorrect to follow Chrysostom, in regarding what follows as a set of 
moral precepts, independent altogether of the preceding context. 
The Apostle links his discussion upon sanctification to the extraordi- 
nary statement made at v. 20th of the former chapter. ‘The false 
inference which he seeks to refute, he had already touched, chap. 
111. v. 5th and 8th. Compare the commentary at v. 15, 1 Peter ii. 16, 
Jude iv., where the persons are described, who really perverted in 
this manner the doctrine of salvation. 

V.2. While the Apostle repugns the false conclusion in question, 
he was bound, of necessity, to state the grounds, why it is not con- 
ceivable that the regenerated Christian should continue in sin. ‘The 
liveliness of his mind, however, prevents him here, in like manner as 
at chap. 111. v. 3 and 5, from coming to a refutation in form, other- 
wise he must have shown that what God has effected by the redemp- 
tion, likewise becomes manifest in those who are the subjects of it, 
according as at verse 15th of the previous chapter, he adverts to the 
fact, that the χάρις is not merely objective, something existing ex- 
ternally of man, but is something operative within him; or as Augus- 
tine states the argument in prop. 31: Hine ostendit de preteritis pec- 
catis factum esse ut donarentur, et in eo superasse gratiam ut preterita 
peccata demitterentur. Ergo quisquis adhuc querit augmenta pec- 
cati, ut augmentum gratiw sentiat, non intelligit se id agere, ut nihil 
in eo gratia operetur. Opus enim gratiz est ut moriamur peccato. 
In place of this answer, he merely replies by the assertion, that the 
discrepancy is as great between Christianity and sin, as between death 
and life. Οἵτινες ἀπεδάνομεν. ‘This verb, with the dative, denotes 
being dead in reference to a particular object, Gal. ii. 19. So ζῇν, 
1 Peter ii. 24. ‘The natural man has pleasure in sin, and no com- 
mandment has power to root that feeling from his heart. Upon a 
believing surrender of the soul to Christ, however, the new principle 
of life takes its rise within him, the yaecs, the consciousness of the 
love of God manifested towards him in the redemption. ‘Thus Chry- 
sostom: Τί δέ ἐστιν, νεκροὺς αὐτῇ γεγονέναι; τὸ πρὸς μηδὲν ὑπακούειν αὐτῇ 
λουπόν᾽ τοῦτο yae τὸ μὲν βάπτισμα ἐποίησεν ἅπαξ, ἐνέκρωσεν Huas αὐτῇ- 
dec δὲ λοιπὸν παξὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σπουδῆς κατοφθοῦσθαν αὐτὸ Sunvexus. 
ὥστε, κἃν μυξία ἐπιτάττῃ; μηκέτι ὑπακούειν, ἀλλὰ μένειν ἀκίνητον ὥσπερ 


CHAPTER VI. V. 3. ΤΣ 


τὸν νεχρόν. A similar expression to the ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ is 
the following used by Philo. (Qwod det. Pot. Insid. p. 164. ed. Fr.): 
ὁ ΓΑβελ, τὸ παραδοξώτατον, ἀνήξηταί τε καὶ ζῇ. ᾿Ανήξηταυ μὲν tx τῆς 
τοῦ apeovos διανοίας» δῇ δὲ τὴν ἐν θεῷ ζωὴν εὐδαίμονα. 

V.3. The Apostle ought now to show, that by virtue of the very 
nature of the doctrine they profess, Christians must appear dead in 
respect of sin, and in how far this is the case. All that he does, 
however, is to appeal to the well-known baptismal rite, whose sym- 
bolical meaning he explains, thereby endeavouring to demonstrate, 
how a spiritual regeneration is necessarily connected with the recep- 
tion of Christianity. ‘The basis of what he delivers is the thought, 
that every endeavour after salvation, and acquiescence in the Christian 
scheme of it, presupposes a sense of the need of emancipation from 
sin. ὅσου, more forcibly than οἵτινες, shows the universality of the 
Christian obligation to be inwardly conformed to the death of the 
Saviour. 

ἐβαπιτίσϑημεν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. The εἰς expresses the same as the 
baptismal formula, Matt. xxviii. 19, although ὄνομα is here wanting. 
That word in the formula, as elsewhere the Hebrew dw, seems indeed 
to be pleonastic; of which the special proof is the observation of Vi- 
tringa, (Observ. Sacre, Frankf. 1700, 1. ili. c. 22.) that among the 
Rabbins, a similar expression was used in the baptism of proselytes, 
When the proselyte, for example, is a slave, the master declares 
whether he chooses still to keep him as a slave, or to grant him his 
freedom, and, in doing so, uses ihe following words, |W 12 Dw2 430 
or 13 nwa 020 “to baptize in the name of a freeman’? or “in that of 
aslave.”” It but remains to inquire what the εἰς in the baptismal 
form signifies. Usually it is explained as meaning info the acknow- 
ledgment. Now that sense it certainly may have, but to pass over 
other grounds, there are certain parallel passages against it, 6. g. 1 
Cor. i. 13, Id. x. 2, Id. xii. 13, in which it rather seems to denote 
participation in that with which it is construed. In the present 
case, consequently, it would imply znto participation of the blessings 
of Christ’s grace. 

εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ. ‘The preposition has obviously the same 
meaning here, as in the preceding context, and that, according to the 
explication we have given, is also highly suitable to the scope, viz. 
‘that if baptized into fellowship with Christ in general, we must also 
be baptized into fellowship with his death.” So Ambrose. (De 
Sacram. |. II. c. 7.) Chrysostom: εἰς τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος. 
Bengel says excellently: Qui baptizatur, induit Christum, Adamum 


* But what means, To have become dead to sin? It means to obey it in 
nothing any more. This result baptism hath accomplished for us once, hay- 
ing slain us in regard to sin. Henceforth it is incumbent upon us to carry 
this death, by our own pains, continually into effect, so as even although sin 
command us a thousand times, to remain motionless like a corpse. 

+ Abel, marvellous to tell, is taken away, and yet lives. He is taken away 
from a foolish understanding, and lives the life of blessedness in God. 

23 


178 CHAPTER VI. V. 4. 


secundum; in Christum, inquam, totum, adeoque etiam in mortem 
ejus baptizatur, et perinde est, ac sieo momento Christus pro tali 
homine, et talis homo cum Christo, pateretur, moriretur, sepeliretur. 
So also Bucer. In this view βαπτίξεσθαν εἰς τὸν ϑάνατον αὐτοῦ is not 
different from the συνεσταυφώθημεν which occurs, Rom. vi. 6, and Gal. 
ii. 20. 

V.4. The figurative expressions ἀπεδάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ leads the 
Apostle to compare Christ’s bodily with our spiritual death, and 
thence to deduce the obligation incumbent upon Christians to sacrifice 
their life of sin, as the Saviour sacrificed his earthly existence. He 
had said that the right of baptism, which takes place at the entrance 
into Christianity, manifests that it is the will of the Christian to con- 
‘form spiritually to the death of Christ. The very obvious idea here- 
upon occurs to him, that the baptismal symbol itself may be regarded 
as a figure of the death of Christ, and accordingly he in this verse 
represents the Christian undergoing baptism, as being in some sort 
buried with his Saviour. Having proceeded thus far with the em- 
blematical meaning of baptism and the death of Christ, it was natural 
for the Apostle to assimilate in like manner the coming out of baptism, 
and the resurrection of Christ, which accordingly he does. We find 
at another place the same symbolical allusion, Col. 11. 12. For the 
explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is 
necessary to call the attention to the well known circumstance, that, 
in the early days of the church, persons when baptized, were first 
plunged below, and then raised above the water, to which practice, 
according to the direction of the Apostle, the early Christians gave 
a symbolical import. See Suiceri Thes. T. I. sub voce ᾿Αναδύσις- 
In the same sense Chrysostom on the third chap. of John, observes: 
Καθάπερ γὰρ ἔν tut τάφῳ τῷ ὕδατυ χαταδνόντων ἡμῶν τὰς κεφαλας ὃ πα- 
λαιὸς ἄνθρωπος δϑάπτεται; καὶ χαταδὺς κάτω χρύτίτεται ὅλος καθάπαξ.ἢ 

Συνετάφημεν. "The συν here expresses similarity quasi, donee αὖτος» 
Rom. viii. 17; Col. iii. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 11. The Apostle uses the 
word buried in place of died, as being more emphatic. Bengel: 
Sepultura mortem ratam facit. Melancthon: Sepelimur autem una 
cum Christo, quia postquam natura nostra mortificari ccepit, pecca- 
tum sepultum est dupliciter. Primum imputatione, quanquam enim 
reliquiz manent, tamen sunt condonate. Secundo, quod ad affectum 
attinet, quia natura vitiosa desinit esse efficax. At nondum sumus 
glorificati. Quare etsi sumus justi, tamen jacemus sepulti exspec- 
tantes glorificationem, sicut Paulus inquit: Vita nostra abscondita est 
cum Christo, id est, etsi habemus gloriam, justitiam, vitam, tamen 
hee gloria latet adhuc tecta cum Christo donec resuscitabimur. ‘The 
οὖν is here requisite to denote the continuance of the sense. In ex- 
plication of it, Seb. Schmidt very justly applies the following canon: ° 
Particulz illative non semper conclusiones precedentibus subjungunt, 


* For when we sink our heads in the water, as if it were in a tomb, the old 
man is buried, and going down is hidden entire and at once. 


CHAPTER VI. V. 4, 5. 179 


et ex jis inferunt formales, sed seepe quid, uno alterove posito, dicen- 
dum porro sit, et ex iis inferendum: Inasmuch, viz. as συνετάφημεν 1s 
here in no respect different from the ἀπεθάνομεν. 

εἰς τὸν ϑάνατον. Calovius, Castalio, Seb. Schmidt, and Wolf, have, 
in a very forced manner, connected this clause with the verb ovvera- 
onuev, understanding it to mean the death of sin. But if such were the 
case, some supplementary clause would here have been absolutely 
necessary, Seeing εἰς ϑάνατον occurred before referring to the death of 
Christ. Hence the ancients, and Homberg, Chr. Schmid, and other 
moderns construe εἰς τὸν ϑάνατον With βαπτίσματος, and again under- 
stand it to signify the death of Christ, into fellowship with which 
believers are baptized. 

διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός. Beza supposes that there is here a mis- 
take of the case, and that it should be εἰς τὴν δόξαν. Castalio and 
Carpzovius consider the διὰ with the noun to be used for the adjec- 
tive, and translate; in paterna gloria resurrexit. But Camerarius 
refutes this interpretation, and renders correctly: Per potentiam glo- 
riosam. The word δόξα, to wit, in Heb. 1323, as Bucer likewise 
observes, means generally, singularis presentia divinitatis. It denotes 
the sum of all the divine perfections, and hence also any single, pe- 
culiarly prominent attribute. So in Ps. Ixviii. 34, and Is. xii. 2. the 
Hebrew iy is rendered δόξα, Col. i. 2, xearos τῆς δόξης. We may 
therefore take 5.a with the genitive in its usual signification. Tees- 
πατεῖν is a copy of the Hebrew phrase ]7n7 or 797 to lead a mode 
of life. Καινότης ξωῆς likewise a Hebraism for χαυνὴ ζωή, 

V. 5. Some look upon this verse as demonstrative of the foregoing. 
So Mylius, who says, that the Apostle states the reason why Chris- 
tians, by conforming to the death of the Lord, must likewise conform 
to his resurrection. ‘The reason is twofold. One is given meta- 
phorically; Christians being incorporated with the Saviour, as the 
graft is with the tree, must share all things with him. ‘The other is 
derived from the necessary connexion between death and resurrec- 
tion. It is better, however, to consider the verse as an explanatory 
appendage. 

Siupveos. The old interpreters took this word in its primary 
meaning. ‘The Vulgate translates: complantati facti sumus; the 
Syriac: una plantati sumus; Beza: plantati coaluimus; and Chrysos- 
tom thus comments: τῷ τῆς PTE Las ὀνόματι τὸν ἐκ ταύτης καρπὸν ἥμιν 
αἰνιξάμενος. Καθάπεξ yae τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ταφὲν ἐν τῇ γῇ» καξπὸν τῆς 
οἰκουμένης τὴν σωτηξίαν ἡνεγκεν᾽ οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον ταφὲν ἐν τῷ βατσί- 
TLOMATL, καρπὸν ἤνεγχε τὴν δικαιοσύνην, τὸν ἁγιωσμὸν, τὴν υἱοθεσίαν, τὰ 
μνεία ἀγαθά. In the same sense also, Calvin beautifully says: In- 


* By the word planting, he alludes to the fruit we reap from his death; for, 
as his body, when buried in the earth, produced the salvation of the whole 
world, so ours also, when buried in baptism, has borne the fruits of righteous- 
ness, sanctification, adoption, and a thousand blessings. 


180 CHAPTER VI. v. 5. 


sitio non tantum exempli conformitatem designat, sed arcanam con 
junctionem, per quam cum ipso coaluimus, ita ut nos spiritu suo 
vegetans, ejus virtutem in nos transfundat. Ergo ut surculus com- 
munem habet vite et mortis conditionem cum arbore in quam insertus 
est, ita vite Christi non minus quam et mortis participes nos esse 
consentaneum est. And Bengel: Omnis vis vegetativa spiritualis est 
in Christo, eaque in baptismum collata est. So also Beza, Bucer, 
and Heumann. vupvros and συμφυὴς, however, signify no more 
than συγγενὴς and συνών. Plato de leg. i. 10. ὅτι μὲν ἡγῆ Seovs, ovy- 
γένειά τις ἴσως σὲ meds τὸ ξύμφυτον ἄγει τιμᾷν καὶ νομίξειν εἶναι: Where 
ξύμφυτον is equivalent to συγγενές. Hesychius explains σύμφυτον by 
ovpnogevousvoy and ovvdy, according to which it here differs in no re- 
spect from ὅμοιος. Now as ὁμοίωμα, with a noun in the genitive, is 
a Hebraism for the adjective ὅμοιός cove, SO σύμφυτοι τῷ ὁμοιώματιυ τοῦ 
Sovarov αὐτοῦ is merely a pleonastic expression for ὁμοίως ἀπεθάνομεν 
ὥσπερ αὐτὸς, OF ἐν τῷ ϑανάτῳ αὐτοῦ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ γεγόναμεν. 

ἀλλὰ καὶ is the particle indicating a climax, and usually stands in 
the conclusion after conditional premises. See Palairet Observ. 

τῆς ἀναστάσεως. "[Ὸ this genitive we must again supply τῷ ὁμοιώ- 
pare, NOt μέτοχοι aS Hrasmus and Heumann incorrectly suggest. ‘The 
translation of Luther, ** we shall be like the resurrection,”’ is false. 
The sense is as follows: By conquering death, Christ completed his 
terrestrial task, 7. e. his existence in fellowship with humanity, bur- 
dened with the consequences of sin. As a risen Christ, he had 
already entered upon his exaltation, as he indeed appears not to have 
lived habitually upon the earth. In like manner we, so soon as we 
have in baptism acknowledged our sins and received pardon, are 
bound to arise to a new existence, which is founded on heavenly- 
mindedness. Chrysostom: καὶ πὼς ἀνάστασις; τῆς μὲν Guaerias νεκξω- 
ϑεύσης, τῆς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἀνασγάσης: καὶ 775 μὲν Maracas ζωῆς ἀφανυσϑείση ς» 
Ins δὲ καινῆς 7Ταύήης καὶ ἀγγελικῆς πιολυτευομένης. ὅταν δὲ ἀχούσῃς καυνὴν 
ζωὴν πολλὴν ξήτευ δὴν ἐναλλαγὴν» καὶ μεγάλην τὴν μεταβολὴν. ἀλλὰ yae 
Saxevoar μοι λοιπὸν ἔπεισιν, xai στενάξαι μέγα, ὅταν ἐννοήσω πίόσην μὲν 
ἡμᾶς ἀπαιτεῖ φιλοσοφίαν ὃ ἸΤαῦλος, πόσῃ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς ἐξεδώκαμεν ῥαθυμίᾳ, 
μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ἐπὶ τὸ πεότεξον ἐπανιόντες γήξας» καὶ εἰς τὴν Αὔγυπτον 
ἀνακάμτιτοντες» καὶ σκορόδων μεμνημένου μετὰ τὸ μάννα.“ 

᾿Εσόμεθα. ‘The future tense here occasions difficulty, for it seems 
to intimate that ἀνάστασις means the resurrection of the body. So 
Cicumenius: Molas ἀναστάσεως; τῆς ὅταν ἀναστῶμεν. Καὶ dea ἀγαθό- 


* How is this resurrection? It takes place in the death of sin and the re- 
storation of righteousness, in the disappearance of the old, and the reign of a 
new and angelical life. And when you hear mention made of a new Life, be 
sure that implies a great change and diversity. For myself, 1 forthwith burst’ 
into tears and groans, when I reflect what strictness Paul demands of us, and 
to what indolence we have given ourselves up, relapsing after baptism into 


our previous old age, returning to Egypt, and hankering after the garlic though 
we have tasted the manna. 


CHAPTER VI. V. 5, 6. 181 


ἕητα Θεοῖ. τὸν μὲν ϑάνατον τοῦ χυξίον; ὡς ἐν eixdve ἀπεθάνομεν, τῆς δὲ 
ἀναστάσεως, ἀληθὼς κοινωνήσομεν.ὃ If bodily resurrection is meant, it is 
not easy to bring the passage into concord with the previous and sub- 
sequent context. Now, if we follow the bulk of the commentators, 
and suppose, as the connection certainly requires, that allusion is 
made to spiritual resurrection, then the circumstance of the verb being 
in the future, either expresses obligation, ‘*so owght we also to be,”’ 
a sense which Raphelius endeavours to justify grammatically; (An- 
nott. in Herod) or following Baumgarten, we must interpret it as sig- 
nifying, ‘* that in the present life the Christian never attains to com- 
plete spiritual resurrection.’ This interpretation seems to be verified 
by verse 8. Most to the purpose, is the supposition of Limborch, 
that both meanings, the resurrection of the spirit, and the resurrection 
of the body, blended together in the Apostle’s mind when he used 
the word ἀνάστασις» inasmuch as the latter may in some sort be re- 
garded as the complement of the former, it being only after the re- 
moval of the Christian from this earth, that the perfect 2.7 begins. 
See observations at chap. v. verse 12 and 17. In compliance with 
this view, viz. that the external ἀνάστασις is but as it were the com- 
pletion of that which has already taken place within, the Saviour 
himself in the 5th chap. of John, connects the description of the 
former immediately with that of the latter. 

V. 6. The Apostle proceeds to extend the emblematical compari- 
son, and now applies the particular kind of death which our Saviour 
suffered, spiritually to believers. He again unites this proposition 
with the foregoing, by the participle instead of a finite tense of the 
verb, a construction which is especially frequent with the verbs εὐδέ- 
var and γιγνώσκειν. See numerous examples from Polybius in Ra- 
phelius, note Polybb. Grotius well: Modo hoe infigamus animo. 
Ὃ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος. As we have already hinted, at chap. ii. 20, the 
Israelite regarded the Gentile who joined himself to the external 
theocracy, as undergoing a new birth. So the Talmud expresses it, 
Tr. Jevamoth, f. 62,1. ‘*A proselyte who comes over is like alittle 
child,’ upon which passage Maimonides remarks, “ and his relatives 
are his relatives no more.”’ By entering into entirely new relations 
of life, such a person was looked upon as another man, so that the 
common appellation of proselytes was ΓΦ ΓΙ AN 2, new creature. 
This mode of speech was, it is probable, transferred by our Saviour 
from the old to the new dispensation, John iii. under which the mind 
becomes more spiritualized, and which required not merely an exter- 
nal renunciation of the previous course of life, but an inward with- 
drawal and separation from all former relations, Language referring 
in the same way to the Old ‘Testament theocracy, appears to have 


* What resurrection does he mean? That which takes place when we rise 
from the grave. And mark the goodness of God. We have died only in the 
likeness of the Lord’s death. But in the resurrection we shall have real fel- 
lowship with him. 


182 CHAPTER VI. V. 6. 


been transferred by Paul to Christians, when he discriminates between 
the παλαιὸς and the χαυνὸς ἄνθδωπος. Schittgen tells us that, in Sohar 
Chadash, the fallen Adam, (an expression often used by Cabalistical 
authors, only as the symbol of humanity not yet assimilated to its 
prototype, 7. 6. of man as a sinner) whom they also call ‘the evil 
nature,’’ is also denominated 20 O78 the old Adam. As every hu- 
man being in his natural state bears the image of the fallen Adam, so 
ought every Christian to exhibit instead of that the image of the glo- 
rified and holy Jesus. ‘lhe whole previous being of the individual, in 
knowledge, sentiment, and volition, should be renewed and changed 
by virtue of fellowship with the Saviour, into which we are brought 
by the redemption. It is hence manifest, what profound meaning 
there lies in that appellation, seeing that all human wisdom and doc- 
trine improve only partially. 'Theodoret at Col. iii. 9: παλαιὸν dv- 
Beano τὴν προτέραν ἐκάλεσε σίολιτείαν. Of the new Adam he says at 
verse 10: “Avadev ἡμᾶς ἐδημιούξγησεν ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς; καὺ τοὺς τῆς θείας 
εἰκόνος χαξαχτῆξας: οὖς ἡ ἁμαρτία διέφθειρεν, ἀκρυβέστεξον ἐν Hucy ἐξετύ- 
πωσε. Itis a very perverted interpretation which is given by Seb. 
Schmid: Vetus homo est collapsus, novus integer!! 

Συνεστανεῴθη. ‘The application here.made of the special kind of 
death suffered by our Saviour, to the spiritual death of the old man, is 
the more emphatic, inasmuch as the former is peculiarly accompanied 
with pain, and resembles the way in which the love of sin is actually 
extinguished in the Christian. Crucifixion, first painfully robs a 
man of all power ofaction. He still lives, but lives under constraint 
and torture. By slow degrees does he sink away, until the breaking 
of his limbs puts an end to him at last. In like manner might it be 
said, is the love of sin pierced through by the impressions which the 
Holy Spirit makes upon the heart. It can no more do what it 
would, but still it does not expire. As the opposite thirst for holiness, 
however, which flows from and keeps pace with the believer’s grow- 
ing passion for his soul’s invisible friend, augments in fervour, the 
love of sin feels itself miserable and tormented, and declines apace 
until death inflicts upon it the finishing stroke, and conducts the 
Christian, purified by the contest, into the peaceful bosom of his 
Saviour. 

iva καταργηθῇ. Beza: Notandum est proponi metam sanctifica- 
tionis non quasi ad eam usque jam in hae vita perveniemus, sed quo- 
niam ad eam contendimus ac tandem etiam pervenerimus, quum vi- 
delicet Deus erit omnia in omnibus. 

σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας. We can suppose a fourfold way of interpret- 
ing this expression. The first is, that a body is metaphorically at- 
tributed to sin. So Chrysostom: οὐ τὸ σῶμα τοῦτο οὕτω καλὼν; ἀλλὰ 
τὴν πονηξίαν ἅπασαν. ὥσπερ yae παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον river τὴν ὁλόκληρον 
χαχίαν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ σῶμα Tov ἀνθεώπου ἐκείνου τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν διαφόρων 


* Originally the God of all created us, and stamped more correctly the 
characters of the divine image, which sin corrupted. 


CHAPTER VI. V. 6. 183 


μερὼν πονηξίας συγκειμένην mud κακίαν. ἢ Origen gives the same in- 
terpretation along with another. So also Pelagius: Hoc est, ut om- 
nia vitia destruantur. Quia unum vitium membrum est peccati, om- 
nia corpus totum. ‘Thomas Aquinas: Congeries malorum operum, 
which is the interpretation many give to σῶμα in chap. vil. 24. This 
sense is here adopted by Erasmus, Grotius, Limborch, Koppe, and 
Wolf. But, although we may metaphorically consider sin as a man 
to whom bodily members are attributed, it is less natural to give a 
body to sin, more especially as the Apostle makes no farther appli- 
cation of this comparison, as he does in that other passage where he 
speaks of the members of a metaphorical body. A second way is to 
understand σῶμα in the sense which owe generally bears, human na- 
ture weak and abandoned by the quickening Spirit of God. No 
passage, however, can be pointed out where there is a necessity for 
giving this meaning to σῶμα. ‘There is none even at Rom. viii. 10. 
It is a meaning which, in Hebrew, cleaves exclusively to the word 
“wa, and hence, in the Hellenistic, always to the corresponding caeé. 
A third interpretation is as follows; Σῶμα may be used in like man- 
ner, as in the language of the Rabbins oxy and 411, for intensifying 
the following noun, as it were the being of sin, an exemplification of 
which we would have in Rom. vii. 24, and perhaps also in Col. i. 
22. This resemblance to the Hebrew 4) and Oxy is here supposed 
by Clarius, Hammond, Schittgen, Conrad Vorst, and Glassius, (Phi- 
lol. Sacra. p. 1234 and 1654,) only that these expositors hold σῶμα 
to be purely periphrastic, as the Hebrew words frequently are. It 
is better, however, to consider it as giving intensity to the noun it 
governs. ΠῚ ‘D1 among the Rabbins means substantialia legis. In 
Greek, also, σῦμα frequently signifies the mass.’ Aristotle says, 
Probl. xxiv. 9, τὸ σῶμα τὸ τοῦ ὕδατος πᾶν. Hence, Schneider has 
defined σῶμα, “any whole composed of parts or members.”” Now, 
although the views of the word which we have stated, and more 
especially the last, are by no means inadmissible, still the most na- 
tural way is, to take σῶμα in its usual sense, to regard the following 
noun in the genitive case as used, instead of the adjective ἁμαφτητι- 
κὸν, (in like manner, as Plato says, φύσις τῆς ἀσθενείας.) and to sup- 
pose that Paul speaks directly of that kind of sin which manifests 
itself in the body, partly because sensuality and intemperance are 
the most ordinary and apparent offences, partly because the compa- 
‘ rison with the crucified Saviour is thus most easily drawn. So also 
below, at v. 12, 7. and 24, and chap. viii. 10,13. The xavagyev 
naturally refers to the ἁμαρτητιχὸν and not to the σῶμα. Δουλεύειν. In 
Scripture this expression is used to denote the relation of man to the 
power of good as well as to that of evil, which shall be more fully 


* Tt is not to the body itself that he gives this name, but to sinfulness in 
general. For as he elsewhere denominates the whole of sin the old man, in 
like manner, considering it as composed of the various constituent parts of 
wickedness, he now calls it the body of that man. 


» 


184 CHAPTER VI. V. 7, 8. 


explained at verse 16th. Man is purely an organ; he must either 
devote himself to the service of God, in doing which he is truly 
free; or to the service of that which is contrary to God, and then he 
ever more and more annihilates the idea of his own being. 

V.7. Paul further corroborates what he has just said, by a general 
proposition. ‘This proposition may be understood in three different 
ways. Let ἀποθνήσκειν be taken in its spiritual meaning, and δικαυόω 
as signifying acquit, deliver, and there will result the following sense 
of the words: “" He who is spiritually dead with Christ is freed from 
sin.”’ Such is the sense adopted by Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
and Limborch. Or let guaez’a be supposed to mean the guilt or 
penalty of sin, δικαίοῦν would then signify, to justify, absolve judi- 
cially, and guided by the Talmudic sentence, Sanhedr. ὁ. 6, D’SOn 
52 macnn mn. Let my death atone for all my sins, we 
should obtain the following meaning. ‘Since Christ has suffered 
death, and the believer is one with Christ, so has he also died for 
sin, and consequently is now free from its penalty.”’ So Jac. Alting, 
Wolf, Carpzovius, and others. It appears most natural, however, 
that as the Apostle is applying to the Christian spiritually, what is 
true of the corporeal death and resurrection of Christ, he in like man- 
ner transfers also the laws which came into operation on the death of 
the body to spiritual mortification. So 'Theodoret, Theophylact, 
(icumenius, Beza, and others. In this view it would be best to 
translate it, “‘ He that is dead bodily has no more to do with sin.” 
Thus the Talmud, in Tr. Nidda, declares, “ΓΘ man who dies is 
freed from the commandments. So also Philo (1. 1, Alleg. towards 
the close:) εἰ ἀποθάνοιμεν ἀπηλλαγμένη ἡ ψυχὴ (ἔσται) κακοῦ καὸ vexeov 
σώματος. Precisely similar is the statement, 1 Peteriv. 1. The 
διχαιοῦσθαυ Means in ‘that case the same as ἐλευθεφοῦσθαν Which is 
employed in the 18th verse, inasmuch as liberation is the consequence 
of justification and acquittal. 

V.8. What the Apostle here appends does not ‘differ from what 
is said in verse 5th. It rather seems that he wishes merely to im- 
press that statement more deeply, and hence repeats it in a somewhat 
more comprehensive form. He shows, to wit, that Christ had been 
subjected to mortality only for a brief period, and to death but once, 
while, on the contrary, the state of glory upon which he entered at 
the resurrection is eternal; and he infers, that in the second birth, 
there is imparted to the Christian a seed (1 John iii. 9) which is in- 
destructible, and which unfolds itself in evergrowing glory and bliss 
through all eternity. Regeneration, he thus intimates, is not merely 
a resurrection, but an eternal resurrection, upon which no death shall 
ever intrude. Πιστεῦομεν ὅτι χαὺ συξήσομεν. The Apostle, in verse 
5th, had made use of the future ἐσόμεθα. He does the same here, - 
only adding, that the life of union with the Saviour is a subject of 
faith; and ‘the reason why he adds this is, that he looks upon that 
life to come as an uninterrupted continuation, as but the completion 
and exaltation of the life that now is. As it doth not yet appear what 


CHAPTER v1. v. 9, 10. 185 


we shall be, when our life, which is now hid in God, shall be re- 
vealed, the Apostle has good grounds for representing the full accom- 
plishment of our spiritual resurrection as a matter of faith. Erasmus: 
Igitur si commortui sumus Christo mortuo, a pristinis vitiis liberi, 
confidimus fore ejusdem beneficio, ut posthac per vite inculpate in- 
nocentiam una cum vivente vivamus, et ita vivamus, ne relabamur 
unquam in mortem, et in hoc Christi simulacrum quoad fieri potest 
referentes. Neque enim ille sic resurrexit, ut denuo jus aliquod 
morti in se permitteret, sed revixit immortalis deinde futurus. 

V.9. For the purpose of establishing the redemption, the guiltless 
Jesus had once entered this earthly sphere, which has been subverted 
by the consequences of sin, and, as connected with it, had taken 
upon himself the θάνατος. ‘That being accomplished, death has no 
more influence upon him. xverevew seems to involve the idea of a 
usurped power, for properly, as Christ was an innocent being, there 
was no reason why he should die. 

V. 10. ‘The Apostle states the reason why, in the instance of 
Christ, death can only once take effect. Here we have first to re- 
mark, with respect to the punctuation, that the Greek interpreters 
place the comma before éuaezria, which is correct. While the Syriac, 
the Vulgate, Erasmus and others, place it after that word, which 
yields a sense no doubt, but by no means so apposite a one. ‘To 
justify the latter punctuation, it does not suffice to urge that τῇ auae- 
τίῳ and τῷ Θεῷ do not form a suitable antithesis. In point of fact, 
ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ Should not form a counterpart to ζῆν τῷ Θεῷ; 
the object of the Apostle being, as it frequently is, to make only a 
formal parallelism. Following on the other hand the more generally 
received mode of pointing, which places the comma before duaeria, 
we find here a very adequate reason assigned why Christ could not 
die more than once. (CE£cumenius: Kai τοσοῦτον οὐκ ἔτι ἀποθανεῖται, 
Ore ἔχεῖνο τὸ ἅπαξ 6 ἀπέθανεν, οὐχ ὡς ὑπεύθυνος θανάτου κατὰ τοὺς AoLMOVS 
ἀνθρώπους ἀπέθανεν, GAAG διὰ τὴν τοὺ κόσμου ἁμαρτίαν; ἵνα ταύτην ἀνέλῃ 
καὶ θανατώσῃ.ἔ Chrysostom: Καὶ σχόπευ πάλιν αὐτοῦ τὴν φιλονεικίαν, 
καὶ πῶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων αὐτὸ κατασκενάζει. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ yae εἰκὸς ἣν τινας 
θορφυβείσθαυ διὰ τὸν σταυδὸν καὶ τόν θάνατον, δείκνυσιν Ore δὲ αὐτὸ μὲν 
οὖν φοῦτο χρὴ θαῤῥεὶν λοιπόν. Μὴ yae ἐπειδὴ ἅπαξ ἀπέθανέ, φησιν νομίσῃς 
αὐτὸν θνητὸν εὖναι. xat γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸ ἀθάνατος μένει. θανάτου yae 
θάνατος ὃ θάνατος αὐτοῦ γέγονε. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀπέθανε; διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀπο- 
θνήσκει. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν θάνατον τῇ ἀμαφτία ἀπέθανε. Calvin: 


* And thus he will never die any more, because in the death he once en- 
dured, he did not die like other men, as being subject to death, but in conse- 
quence of the sin of the world, that he might take away, and destroy it. 

{ Remark again his love of argument, and how he proves his point by 
what seems to prove the contrary. For as it was likely that some would be 
dismayed by the cross and death of the Saviour, he shows that these ought to 
be rather a ground of future confidence. You must not, he says, conclude 
from the circumstance of his having once died, that he is mortal. That is 
the very reason why henceforth he is immortal. His death was the death of 


24 


186 CHAPTER VI. v. 10. 


Dominium mortis ad momentum subeundo in ezternum ipsam de- 
glutivit. It is hence obvious that ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτία must here 
have a different meaning from where it is applied to men. The 
readiest way would be to consider it as equivalent in sense to ize 
τῶν apaetiov. Paul may have preferred using the dative, either for 
the purpose of making his present declaration with respect to Christ, 
analogous, even in the form of expression to what he had before said 
of believers, or as appears more probable, for the sake of the paral- 
lelism with τῷ Θεῷ. In the Andromache of Euripides, we have an 
example of the same construction: τέθνηκα τῇ σῇ θυγατρὶ instead of 
baie τῆς ons Ovyareds. It might, however, be more apposite to 
regard auaeria as the xvevos, in like manner as davaros was before 
so called. Christ, having once taken upon himself the conse- 
quences of sin, and appeared in the human nature according as now 
constituted, (Phil. ii. 7,) required to make this oblation to sin, to die 
unto or in consequence of it. Augustine gives a false interpretation 
of this dative in his Enchiridion, ec. 41, where he considers it as 
standing per metonomen for sinful body: Itaque quodam modo 
peccato moreretur, dum moritur carne in qua erat similitudo peccati. 
Compare on the subject, Heb. ix. 26, 28, where in the same way the 
Saviour’s once dying is represented as sufficing for the establishment 
of an everlasting atonement. 

662 ζῇ. ‘The Greek grammarians, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
and others, consider 6 as used instead of ὅτε. But Beza more cor- 
rectly supposes it an ellipsis, to which xag’ is wanting, as in τὼ 
roma, τ᾽ ἀλλά. See Bos. 

Ζῇ τῷ Θεῷ. An expression which has created difficulties. Theo- 
phylact expounds the dative: ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cicumenius: 
‘thereby that he is God, by his divinity.”’ We must, however, in 
this instance also take the dative in the same general sense, as pre- 
viously τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, and in which men are, v. 11, said gj» τῷ Θεῷ, ** to 
live in relation to, or for God.” ‘This same expression is found, 
2Cor. v. 15. In classical Greek ζῇν zu has the like sense. Thus 
Demosthenes, meet ᾿Αλονήσου: οἵ οὐκ αἰσχύνονταυ Φυλίτιπῳ ζῶντες, καὶ οὐ 
τῇ ἑαυτῶν πατείδι. ‘The ζῇν τῷ Θεῷ in reference to Christ, stands in 
contrast with the ἡμέξαις ἀσθενείας OF τῆς σαρχὸς, Heb. v. 2,7. Hence 
Justinius correctly observes at this passage, ‘‘ It may in a certain 
degree be affirmed, that upon this earth our Saviour lived both to us 
and to his God, inasmuch as it was for our sakes that he lived in a 
certain connection with evil, sin, death and Satan. This connection 
is now dissolved, and God is the only scope of his life.’’ So like- 
wise Beza. Pelagius accurately expresses the sense: Vivit in gloria 
Deitatis. Origen: expleto eo quod in forma Dei positus exinanivit 
semetipsum, formam servi accepit, permanet in forma Dei et equalis: 
Patri. 


death. Because he has died he now dies no more, for that death he died to 
sin. 


CHAPTER Vi. V. 11, 12. 187 
V.11. Here again follows the application to us of the example 
of our Head. In regard to the text, it is to be noted, that Codices 
A DE F QG, and, on their authority Griesbach, omit the εὖναν 
after vexeovs μὲν and that in the same Codices, τῷ χυξίω ἡμῶν is 
wanting. We may follow Griesbach and others, in placing a colon 
after ὑμεῖς. A better way, however, is to supply a χαθὼς to the sense 
at verse 10th, and construe ὑμεῖς with royi2ecde. Matt. v. 16. affords 
an example of οὕτω, standing in the same relation to a preceding 
clause. λΛογίδεσθε. Beza: colligite; refero ad syllogismum, ut inde 
colligamus, ac vere sentiamus, nos tum peccato esse mortuos per 
Christi mortis communicationem, tum Deo vivere id est justitiz. 
Comp. 3, 28. 


Peete rt, 


IT IS GRACE, AND NOT THE LAW, WHICH LEADS THE CHRISTIAN TO 
SANCTIFICATION, WHICH IS PROMOTED BY THAT VERY CIRCUMSTANCE. 
V. 12—19. 


V. 12. Ar the former verse the Apostle had already passed from) 
the domain of doctrine into that of admonition. He now delivers his 
admonitions on a more enlarged scale, connecting with them, at the 
14th verse, the promise of certain victory which belongs to believers, | 
as standing under grace. ‘This circumstance does not weaken but/ 
rather heightens diligence after holiness. It is not without reason 
that Bucer observes on the composition of these admonitions: Cum 
primis hic et in omnibus adhortationibus Paulinis observandum est, 
quod ardent omnia, quod densa sunt argumentis, iisque urgentissimis. 
There is great variation in the text of the last words of this verse. 
Some of the fathers leave all after αὐτῷ away. Several codices omit 
αὐτῇ tv. Others reject αὐτῇ itself, as well as all that follows it. And 
instead of αὐτῇ, others read αὐτῷ ΟΥ̓́αὐτοῦ ΟΥ̓ αὐτὴν. Griesbach is one 
of those who terminate the verse with ὑπακούειν. It is certainly very 
difficult to imagine that Paul used no pronoun at all, for in that case 
the sentence is quite obscure, it being impossible even to discover 
what is the subject to ixaxovew. From this point of view we might 
be inclined to receive a dative into the text. As the reading of airy, 
however, is so very various, and the dative τῇ ἁμαξτίῳ may be sup- 
plied from the subsequent verse, the reading of Griesbach, which 
closes the verse with ὑπακούειν, is probably correct. 

μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω. The older expositors justly observe upon these 
words, that the Apostle does not expect from the Christian at once 
the total eradication of every sinful propensity in the heart, although 
that certainly is the ultimate end at which he aims, but for the present, 


188 CHAPTER VI. V. 12. 


that the ungodly inclinations shall merely not be lords of his inward 
life. According to this, although sin breaks out in the Christian’s 
~ jife, his inclination must be averted from it. Aug. Prop. 35. Quia 
non consentimus desideriis pravis in gratia sumus. What Chrysos- 
tom says upon this verse is truly admirable: Οὐχ εἶπεν μὴ οὖν ζήτω ἡ 
σὰρξ, μηδὲ éveeysita, ἄλλ᾽ ἡ ἁμαξτία μὴ βασιλευέτω. Od yae τὴν 
φύσιν ἤλθεν ἀνελεῖν», ἀλλὰ τὴν πεοαίρεσιν διορθῶσαι. ετα δεικνὺς OTL OD 
βίᾳ καὶ ἀνάγχῃ κατεχόμεθα ὑπὸ τῆς Movnerasy ἀλλ᾽ ἑχόντες» οὐκ εὐπίενγ μὴ 
τυξαννεῖτο, ὅπες ἀνάγκης ἣν» ἀλλὰ μὴ βασιλευέτω. Καὶ γὰρ ἄτοπον 
εἰς βασιλείαν ἀγομένους τῶν οὐξανῶν; βασιλίδα τὴν ἁμαφτίαν ἔχειν» καὶ κα- 
λουμένους συμβασιλεῦσαυ τῷ Χριστῷ, αἰξεισθαν γενέσθαι τῆς ἁμαξτίας αἱ χ- 
μαλώτους. ὥσπερ ἂν ku τις τὸ διάδημα ῥίψας ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς» δαυμονώσῃ 
γυναυκὺ καὶ MeocaLTovoy καὶ ῥάκια πεξφιβεβλημένῃ δουλεύειν ἐθέλοι. εὗτο» 
ἐπευδὴ Baev τὸ περιγενέσθαι ἁμαφτίας, ὅρα πῶς καὶ κοῦφον ἔδειξε, καὶ τὸν 
πόνον παξεμυθήσατο εἰπὼν, ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμὼν σώματι. τοῦτο γὰρ 
δείκνυσι πιξοσχαίρους ὄντας τοὺς ἀγῶνας; καὶ ταχέως xararvomévors.* With 
the natural man it is confessed, that what is lord should be the slave, 
and that the slave, which should be lord. Hence there is reason for 
the Rabbins calling as they do the sinful nature of man 9173 92 the 
great king, and on the other hand the good, Dom) {201 ad, the wise 
poor child. (More Nebothim, p. iii. c.22.) A beautiful allegorical 
exposition of Eccles. ix. 14, referring to this expression, is to be 
found in Beth Israel, p. 19, col. 4. 

ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώματι. Among the ancients, by Origen and Photius, 
among moderns, by Turretin, Chr. Schmid, and others, θνητὸς is con- 
sidered as the same with vexeos, and as having a metaphorical sense. 
Both words they interpret as implying, bereaved of the powers of 
divine life, aS vexeos Means in the phrases πίστις vexed, ἔργα νεχξά. 
Turretin: Cum dominium omne morte finiatur, hine colligit Paulus, 
non debere amplius Christianos corpore suo abuti ad imperia peccati 
exequenda, cujus respectu corpus ipsorum veluti mortuum est. 
Others, among whom Seb. Schmidt, considers σῶμα to be emphatical, 
like céeg, and to mean human nature in general in its present state of 
depravity. Which seems likewise what Calvin intends by, tota 
hominis massa. Σῶμα might also stand for the designation of man’s 
visible frame, by which the Apostle meant to express, as it were, the 


* He does not say, let not the flesh live, neither act, but let not sin reign. 
For he came not to subvert human nature but to rectify the will. Moreover, 
to show that we are not kept by force or necessity in the power of wickedness, 
but of our own free will, he does not say, let it not tyrannize, which would 
have implied a necessary subjection on our part, but the word he uses is 
reign. And surely it would be absurd for those who are bound for the king- 
dom of heaven, to take sin for a queen, and to choose to be her captives when 
called to reign along with Christ. As if one were to cast a diadem from his : 
head, and prefer to be the slave of some demoniac beggarly and ragged fe- 
male. And then, seeing it is hard to vanquish sin, observe how he proves 
that it is easy, and encourages us to the task by the words in your mortal 
body: showing thereby, that our struggles are but for a season and will 
speedily terminate. 


CHAPTER VI. v. 12, 13. 189 


domain, within which the love of sin manifests its power; and then 

it would imply as much as if there stood ὄντων ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώ- 

ματι. It seems most natural, however, to take σῶμα θνητὸν here in 

its usual sense of, the body which is subject to decay, especially as 

the Apostle immediately proceeds to discourse of the bodily mem- 

bers. He does not thereby deny, that every sin has its origin in the 

depravity of the mind. It only comes into external manifestation, 

however, when man employs the bodily members in its service, when, 
his eye obeys the lusts of the soul, to look upon what is forbidden, 
and his hand the angry impulse of the heart, to do some act of vio-| 
lence, and so on. Now, it not being the Apostle’s design to give 

any doctrinal exposition of the source of sin, he is satisfied with 

warning against evil inclinations in their visible form. Bengel with 

precision: Cupiditates corporis sunt fomes; peccatum ignis. In other 

passages Paul admonishes to keep both the soul and body pure, 1 

Thes. v.23. θνητὸς is doubtless added, as Chrysostom, Grotius, and 

others remark, to encourage the Christian, by pointing his thoughts 

to that never-ending glory, into which this frail tabernacle shall one 

day be transformed. 'Theodoret: Ἢ μὲν yae τῶν παθημάτων κίνησίς te 

χαὶ ἐνόχλησις κατὰ φύσιν Huey ἐγγίνεται" τῶν δὲ ἀπειρημένων ἡ πρᾶξις τῆς 

γνώμης ἐξηφτηται" ἔδειξε δὲ χαὺὶ Tov πολέμου τὸ περόσχαιξον; θνητὸν τὸ 

σῶμα πεοσαγοξεύσας. τούτου yae δεξαμένου τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅξον; παύεταῦ 

καὶ τῶν παθημάτων ἣ πξοσβολη. 

V. 13. ‘The Apostle enlarges upon the admonition given in the 
preceding verse. ‘The mortification of sin must bring along with it the 
positive effect of engaging in the service of holiness. ‘Theodoret: βασι- 
λείας μημονεύσας: Grayxatas καὶ τὴν ταύτης ἔδειξε πανοπλίαν, καὶ τὸν τῆς 
νίκης ἡμᾶς ἐξεπαύίδευσε τρόπον. ὅπλους γὰρ χαθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἡ ἁμαξτία τοὺς ἡμετέροις 
xéxenrac wéacow.t When man is regenerated, and the divine prin- 
ciple of life has become operative within him, all must be made to 
serve it. ‘The human body too and its members are not sinful in 
themselves, but are first made so by the perverse inclination of the 
will; according to the remark of Chrysostom upon this passage, who 
says, ‘that the defender of his country, and the murderer alike make 
use of arms, without there being any thing hurtful in these as such.” 
In him who has undergone the new birth, all those things which were 
previously organs of the love of sin, now become organs of heavenly- 
mindedness, and so means of promoting holiness. ‘There is beauty 
in the comment of Pelagius: Ut oculis, qui ante videbat ad concu- 


* For the movements and turbulence of the passions is in us by nature, 
but to carry those that are forbidden into action depends on our mind. He 
has shown also the temporary nature of the war by calling the body mortal. 
For when that has found its termination in death, the assault of the passions 
also ceases. 

+ Having spoken of reigning, he is naturally led to show what armour is 
used under it, and instruct us how to gain the victory. For sin uses ourown 
members aS weapons against us. 


190 CHAPTER V1. v. 13, 14. 


piscendum, nune videat nudum ad vestiendum. Sic de reliquis 
membris adverte. 

Παξιστάνετε. Παριστάναι τινί τὶ, to present to any one something 
for his free use. Polyb. ill. 55, 6: παξαστήσας τὼ πλήθη, πρὸς τὸ ἐξου- 
xodomery τὸν xenuvove ‘This word corresponds to the βασυιλενέτω in 
the foregoing verse, showing, as Pelagius says: Quod homo membra 
sua cul velit parti exhibeat per arbitrii libertatem. 


| τὰ μέλη. ‘Turretin: Non tantum externas notant corporis partes, 
3 


sed etiam internas, adeoque ipsos affectus. ‘These the Apostle does 
not exclude, although they are not what he properly intends. Ὅπλον. 
The Hebrew "22, signifies an instrument or weapon. Many adopt 
the latter meaning. Here the first is very appropriate, organs. 
᾿Αδικία, ungodliness in general. ‘Apaeria, the indwelling pre- 
dominant love of sin. 

ὡς ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας. Commentators have needlessly sought a spe- 
ciality of reference. Majus and Deyling believe that Paul has in his 
eye the ὑστεξοπότμοι Of the ancients, who, when they returned to 
life, were regarded as sacred. Wolf, Chr. Schmid and others are 
of opinion that he means to signify how, while the Jews made obla- 
tions of slaughtered animals, the Christians presented themselves as 
living sacrifices, according to the thought expressed, Rom. xii.1. In 
that case, however, the Apostle could scarcely have found a more 
obscure way to enunciate his meaning. Far more eligible is the 
simple sense of the words thus given by Pelagius: Tanquam qui jam 
resurrexistis, quia tunc nec carnaliter vivitur nec peccato. 

ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ Θεῷ. ‘The genitive here denotes the object of 
the arms or organs. ‘The dative may be construed with παξαστήσατε" 
it is, however, more natural to consider it as the dativus commodi, in 
or for God’s cause. 

V. 14. Several expositors look upon χυφιεύσευ as imperative. Itis 
thus interpreted even by Pelagius; also by Hunnius, Locke, Taylor, | 
Heumann and others. Assuming it to be so, the verse would be. 
thus connected with the following: Sin must not have dominion over 
you, were it for no other reason than that you no longer stand under 
the law, and accordingly, as Christians, have superior obligations. 
This interpretation is not quite to be despised. It must yield, how- 
ever, to another, which is decidedly better, and has been more 
generally adopted. According to that, the present verse contains a 
promise, and the following context states the grounds of it. So Ori- 
gen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret and many others. Calvin: 
Exhortatus erat, ut omnes suas facultates in obsequium justitiz appli- 
carent. At quum circumferant carnis reliquias, necesse est eos ali- 
quantum claudicare. Proinde ne infirmitatis sue conscientia fracti, 
animos despondeant, tempestive occurrit, interposita consolatione ex ° 
eo petita, quod jam non exiguntur eorum opera ad severum legis 
examen. Melancthon: Non dominabitur idem est ac non damnat 
vos, sed placeat inchoata obedientia propter Gratiam. Photius: Μὴ 


CHAPTER VI. v. 14. 191 


γὰ ἔστω ὑμῖν ὃ τὴς ἁμαρτίας πόλεμος πξοφασις" ἀσθενὴς ἐστί νυν ἡ ἁμαρτία" 
οὐ δύναται xuprEeverv, ἐὰν, μὴ ἥμεις ἑκόντες ὑποχατακλιθῶμεν αὐτῇ» ἀλλὰ 
πεοσβάλλει μὲν, οὐ κυφιεύευ δέ. 5 Erasmus: Neque vero periculum est, 
ne peccatum vos volentes in pristinam retrahat servitutem, quando- 
quidem jam non estis obnoxii legi, que cupiditates irritabat potius 
quam coercebat. It is consequently quite false to do like Koppe, 
with whom Rosenmiiller also injudiciously agrees, make a pause 
here in the middle of the 14th verse, as if a section of the chapter 
came to a conclusion, and with the words ov yae ἐστὲ to commence a 
new section and a new verse. Even the yde is hostile to this sub- 
division of the verse, which Koppe considers as transitive particle, 
and translates indeed. 

οὐ yae ἐστὲ χτλ. ‘The νόμος presents itself to man with its external 
precepts, and cannot inspire him with the love of good. ‘The Χάξις 
operates inwardly and renews. Here also objective and subjective 
coalesce in the mind of the Apostle. ‘The χάξις objectively, is the 
unmerited affection of God for the sinner. Subjectively, it is the 
new principle of life within, which is wakened by faith in the ob- 
jective truth of pardon in and through,Christ. Chrysostom: νόμος 
μετὰ τοὺς πόνους; τοὺς στεφάνοις ἐπγγγελτο. αὕτη δὲ πρότερον ἐστεφά- 
νωσε; καὶ τότε εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας εἵλκυσεν. Very appositely Augustine: 
(De continentia, 1. 3.) Non sumus sub lege bonum quidem jubente, 
non tamen dante, sed sumus sub gratia, que id quod lex jubet faciens 
nos amare, potest liberis imperare. ‘The two following quotations 
also serve to throw light upon the thought. Ad Num. 13. Ante 
legem sequebantur homines conecupiscentiam carnis; sub lege trahe- 
bantur cum sua concupiscentia; sub gratia nec sequimur concupiscen- 
tiam, nec trahimur ab ea; in pace nulla est concupiscentia carnis. 
And Prop. 13, ad Rom. iii. 20. Quod cum fit (cum gratia homini 
sub lege constituto donatur), tametsi desideria quedam carnis, dum 
in hac vita sumus, adversus spiritum pugnant, ut eum ducant in pec- 
eatum, non tamen his desideriis consentiens spiritus, quoniam est 
fixus in gratia et caritate Dei, desinit peccare. Non enim in ipso 
desiderio pravo, sed in nostra consensione peccamus. On the other 
hand, it by no means harmonizes with the doctrine of Paul, when 
ὑπὸ νόμον and ὑπὸ Xape are interpreted to denote something merely 
external, as is done by Grotius, Clericus, Limborch, and others, 
who render it, the Old and New Testament, the Jewish and Chris- 
tian religion. Ὑπὸ νόμον. Beza: Apud impios sub lege non esse 
significat pro arbitrio suo quidvis audere, sub gratia autem esse non 
posse damnari. 

V. 15. At the commencement of the chapter, the Apostle had 
stated and refuted a false inference, in as far as that applied to the 


* Let not your war with sin be a pretence, for it is now enfeebled, and has 
no power to rule, unless we willingly submit to it. Assail it may but it can- 
not reign. 

{ The law promised a crown when the struggle was over. Grace first aa 
crowned, and then led the soldier to battle. 


192 CHAPTER VI. ν. 15, 16. 


reception of Christianity, viz. that it required no conversion. He 
had pointed to the baptismal ordinance, which alone suffices to show 
that entire conversion is the end for which it is calculated. ‘The same 
inference is here again brought forward in reference to the progress- 
ive walk of the Christian. ‘That consists in the permanent enjoy- 
ment of a sense of the objective Divine favour, and in the subjective 
experience, through the Holy Spirit, of certain quickening and ani- 
mating impressions which are thence derived. May not that be 
detrimental to growth in sanctification? ‘To this Paul now proceeded 
to answer as follows: When a person living in sin accepts of forgive- 
ness and salvation, he thereby evinces that he is in earnest about 
holiness and the happiness with which it is connected, so that the 
reception of Christianity is the manifestation of a decided desire after 
holiness issuing in an inward sense of the want of it. Hence the 
act of accepting redemption of sin, is, in some sort, an entrance into 
the service of a holy God. But as forgiveness is only bestowed 
upon those who really desire to serve God, such persons are thereby 
also brought under obligations to fulfil their service by earnest en- 
_deavours after holiness; and in the career upon which they have en- 
tered towards that, it is impossible to suppose any interruption. 
Chrysostom: “Eyed δὲ τούτοις ἀναπνεῦσαι πεποίηκε τὸν ἀκροατὴν; ἀσ- 
φαλίζεταν πάλιν αὐτὸν, ἐξ ἀντιϑέσεως παραίνεσιν εἰσάγων. Theremarks 
of Calvin are excellent: Quia Dei mysteriis perpetuo carnis sapientia 
obstrepit, necessario subjicit hance prolepsin. Nam quum lex bene 
vivendi sit regula, putamus, ea soluta, protinus corruere omnem dis- 
ciplinam, frangi repagula, nullum denique manere discrimen boni et 
mali.... Hae quidem propria solutio est, nihil aliud quam maledictio- 
nem tolli, cui extra gratiam obnoxii sunt cuncti mortales. Sed Paulus 
quamvis id diserte non exprimit, oblique tamen ostendit. The re- 
proaches thrown upon Christians by the heathen on this point are 
to be found strongly stated, in the words of Celsus, in Origen, con. 
Celsum, |. 3, c. 58. See also Origen’s fine reply. It is likewise 
curious to remark how the heathen Xosimus misrepresents Chris- 
tianity in this particular, (Histor. 1. ii. p, 114, ed. Oxon.) where he 
mentions the sins of Constantine. Julian in his Cawsares, when 
speaking of that emperor, does the same. On the subject of the ob- 
jection that grace abrogates the law, compare Rom. iii. 31, and 1 
Cor. ix. 21. “Δμαρτήσομεν, in the future, as interrogatio deliberativa. 
_ See Lipsius de indic. p. 19. 

V.16. In this sentence there is no tautology. The sense is as 
follows: When once the will of an individual has taken a decided 
determination in favour of a particular power whether of good or evil, 
he is, henceforth, on the one hand, insensibly swayed and directed 
by that power, and, on the other, comes under the engagement to ᾿ 
make all his energies subservient to its interests. By the free course 


_* Having by these things given the listener time to breathe, he strengthens 
him again by introducing an admonition drawn from the very objection. 


CHAPTER VI. v. 16. 193 


which the natural man gives to his own wilful inclinations, sin ac- 
quires still greater and greater attractive influence over him, and, by 
directly darkening his understanding, makes him ever more and more 
the blinded slave of his unbridled desires. On the other hand, 
the natural man on his part, with perceptions indirectly obscured, 
sees himself as in some measure bound to devote his powers to the 
reign of passion. For, to secure the enjoyment of the fruits of his 
sin, new acts of iniquity are constantly necessary, and as no sin, like 
no righteous act, stands isolated, he finds himself constrained, unless 
indeed, an entire conversion takes place, by the mere progressive 
connection of the ensuing with the past period of his life, to commit 
fresh trespasses. It is a beautiful saying of the Talmudists, in Pirke 
Aboth.: ‘A good action is the reward of a good action, as a wicked 
action is punished by asecond.”’ In respect of this obligatory power 
of sin, whereby, partly in a direct, and partly in an indirect manner, 
it blinds the understanding of man, it was even by the ancients repre- 
sented as a Mistress, and sinners as her slaves. We produce as 
vouchers, only the two following passages, Xenophon: (Mem. ]. iv. 
c. 5.) Ὅστις οὖν agxetar ὑπὸ τὼν διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἡδονῶν, καὶ dua ταύ- 
τὰς μὴ δύναται πράττειν τὰ βέλτιστα, νομίζεις τοῦτον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι; Se- 
neca: (Natural. Quest. 1. iii.) Liber est qui servitutem effugit sui. 
Hee est assidua servitus et ineluctabilis, et per diem et noctem equa- 
liter premens, sine intervallo, sine commeatu; Sibi servire gravissi- 
ma servitus est. Even the Rabbins are acquainted with this meta- 
phor, (Sohar, Exod. fol. 48:) Quia malus est, sub potestate ipsius 
(concupiscientiz prave) est, sicut servus sub potestate domini sui. 
So also in the declaration of our Lord, John viii. 34. But although it 
be with acknowledged propriety that he speaks of a δουλεία of sin, it 
is more remarkable when Paul likewise supposes a δουλεία of holi- 
ness. He even intimates at verse 19th, that the expression is not to 
be too much insisted upon. Still there cannot be a doubt that it is 
here also perfectly apposite. For, on the one hand, holiness, no less 
than sin, in consequence of its connection with happiness, by the 
peace, the joy, the tranquillity of soul which it confers, exercises a 
gentle charm over the man who knows it, and, by a certain mysteri- 
ous longing, again allures him beneath its sway. While, on the other 
hand, it holds true, especially of the Christian, that, upon conversion, 
he in some respects binds himself to the service of holiness, and that 
for the reason above assigned, viz. that the sorrow and penitence 
which he feels for his former subjection to sin, and which make him 
seek forgiveness and salvation, involve the confession that it is his 
wish now to belong to another power. Itis in this manner that most 
expositors understand the connection of ideas and reasoning of the 
Apostle. Some, however, among whom are Baumgarten and Mos- 
heim, too partially bring forward the εἰς θάνατον, and the εἰς δικαιοσύνην 
as denoting the recompense obtained, and make the argument of the 
Apostle consist in repelling the false inference by a statement of the 
bitter wages of sin. ‘This view, however, when considered by itself, 
25 


194 CHAPTER VI. v. 16, 17. 


is not apposite, and besides, to say nothing of other reasons, their 
very position shows εἰς θάνατον and εἰς δικαιοσύνην are subordinate. 
The allusion to the recompense at verse 22d is connected solely 
with the admonition. Ὧν παξιστάνετε. This expresses the sponta- 
neous direction of the will, which gives itself up to slavery, and then 
is bound to fulfil all its duties. 

ᾧ ὑπαχούετε. Calvin, Grotius, and Cocceius consider this ᾧ as in 
the ablative case: eo quod obeditis. It is more natural, following the 
Vulgate and Syriac versions, to suppose it here also in the dative, 
and to view these two words as a pleonastic addition, equivalent to 
ἐχείνου, OF, Which seems preferable, as a separate supplementary 
clause united to the previous one by the relative pronoun, instead of 
the demonstrative with xa* accordingly we translate it, “ his servants 
ye are and him ye then in fact obey.” 

sig θάνατον is wanting in Codd. D, Εἰ, the Syrian and elsewhere. 
It is not easy, however, to account for its reception into the text, 
supposing it to have been originally absent. It does not form a pro- 
per counterpart to εἰς δικαιοσύνην» and hence could scarcely have been 
interpolated for the sake of the parallelism; and as, moreover, the 
external authorities do not preponderate against it, we retain it in the 
text. The contraposition of θάνατος and δικαιοσύνη seems to indicate 
that the former refers principally to moral depravity. Seeing, how- 
ever, that δυκαιοσύνη also implies blessedness, it is not necessary to 
exclude the other meanings of θάνατος. 

ΦὉπακοή. Beza: Novitas vite que nos ad obedientiam Dei dispo- 
nit. Comp. 6. v. 19, ὑπαχοή. On this verse Chrysostom observes: 
οὔπω λέγω τὴν γέενναν, Φησὶν; οὐδὲ τὴν πολλὴν ἐκείνην κόλασιν» ἀλλὰ τὴν 
ἐνταῦθα αἰσχύνην, ὅταν δοῦλον γίνεσθε, καὶ ἑχόντες δούλου, καὺ ἁμαξτῖας 
δοῦλοι, καὶ ἐπὶὺ τοιούτῳ μισθῷ ὥστε πάλιν ἀποθανεῖῦν.....«Μὴ τοίνυν ἑκὼν 
σεαυτὸν τίροδῷς. ᾿᾽Επὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν πολέμων καὶ ἄχοντες παξαδίδονταν πολ" 
λάκις οἱ στρατιῶται" ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἂν μὴ αὐτὸς αὐτομολήσῃς» οὐδεύς σον πε- 
ξιέσται. In the 7th chapter the objection of the previous verse is 
more pointedly answered than in the present. ‘There the Apostle 
specially shows how the law has no power to promote holiness in 
man. 

V.17. The Apostle declares that Christians have become so from 
the heart,and accordingly have acknowledged their sin from the 
heart, and from the heart sought forgiveness, and hence have deci- 
dedly surrendered themselves as in some sort servants to holiness. 
' The sentence is not constructed with care. It ought to be: ὅτι» πρίν 
μὲν ὄντες δούλου τῆς ἁμαρτίας: νυν δὲ ὑπηχούσατε; ΟΥ̓́, at all events, ἃ μὲν 
ought to come after ἦτε. Paul enunciates this argument in the form 


* T speak not of hell, he says, nor its awful punishment, but of the disgrace 
there is in being slaves, and willing slaves, and slaves of sin, and slaves for 
such a wage as the second death.....Do not then voluntarily betray yourself; 
for it often happens, that in war soldiers are betrayed against their will. 
Here, however, unless you desert of your own accord none shall overcome 
you. 


CHAPTER VI. V. 17. 195 


of abenediction. On which Bengel makes the just remark: Idioma 
Paulinum est, quod propositiones categoricas solet non categorice et 
nude, sed cum guodam quasi modo, 7. 6. cum significatione affectus, 
gratiarum actionis, voti d&c. efferre; Vide 1 Cor. xiv. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 7. 
Hec observatio faciet, ut multis in locis et sententia sermonis et 
ardor pectoris apostolici distincte appareat. Chrysostom: οὐδὲ yde 
ἀνθξωπίνης ἰόχύος ἣν» φησιν, ἐκείνων ἡμᾶς ἀπαλλάξαι πάντων, ἀλλὰ τῷ 
Θεῷ χάρις τῷ τοσαῦτα καὶ βουληθέντι καὶ δυνηθέντιυ. XO καλῶς εἶπεν ὑξίην 
κούσατε ἐκ xaedias. οὐδὲ yae ἠναγκάσθητε; οὐδὲ ἐβιάσθητε; ἀλλ᾽ 
ἑχόντες μετὰ προθυμίας ἀπέστητε. τοῦτο δὲ χαὶ ἐγκωμιάζοντός ἐστιν ὁμοῦ, 
καὶ καταπτομένον. οὗ γὰρ ἑχόντες προσελθόντες, καὶ μηδεμίαν ὑπομεύναν- 
τες ἀνάγκην; ποίαν ἂν exainte συγγνώμην»; Tuva δὲ ἀπολογίαν ἐπὺ τὼ meo= 
TECH manrvySeoovye es; * 

ὑπηκούσατε sis ὃν ποφεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς. The verb ὑπακούειν, 
although not very appropriate, is retained by the Apostle, in conse- 
quence of his having previously spoken of the Christian ὑπακοή. 
There may be hence a twofold hypallage. If, for instance, we un- 
derstand ὑπακούειν to be here, as it often is elsewhere, (see in Kypke 
examples from Appian and Josephus,) construed with «cs, the ex- 
pression is to be resolved into ὑπηκούσατε εἰς τύπον διδαχῆς ὃς magedo- 
θη ὑμὸν, in compliance with the rule that verbs which in the active 
have the dative of the person, in the passive change that into the 
nominative. Heb. vii. 11, ὁ λαὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο. So Castalio, 
for which he is blamed by Beza: Paruistis ei doctrine rationi, que 
vobis tradita est. If we suppose, on the other hand, that the Apostle 
meant to construe ὑπακούειν as usual with the dative, then the hypal- 
lage consists in the noun’s having taken the sense of its relative, in 
consequence of which it would require to be resolved into τῷ τύπῳ εἰς 
ὃν παρεδόθητε. This construction is defended by Beza, who says in 
explanation of it: Hoc dicendi genus habet magnam emphasin. Ita 
enim significatur evangelicam doctrinam quasi instar typi cujusdam 
esse, cui velut immittamur ut ejus figure conformemur et totam istam 
transformationem aliunde provenire. Adopting the same mode of 
construction, Theophylact observes upon παξεδόθητε: Δεικνύων ὅτυ εἰ 
xOU αὐτοὶ MEOCHAOOY, GAN ὅμως τῆς τοῦ Θεοὺ χάξιτος τὸ Har, πίξοσεθηκε TO 
naeedoOnzs.t The passive form of the verb would here evince, that it 
is by the operation of the Spirit of God that a man is brought to sur- 
render himself to the gospel, and the ἐδουλώθητε of the 18th verse 


* For it was not in human strength, he says, to rescue us from all these 
evils; but thanks be to God, who has had both the will and the power to do 
so! And justly does he say ‘ye have obeyed from the heart,’ for ye were 
neither obliged nor constrained, but with free will and alacrity revolted from 
your former slavery. And this he mentions both as an encomium and a re- 
proach; for as persons, who have of their own accord and not constrained by 
any necessity, embraced Christianity, what kind of an excuse, what apology 
would you have for returning to the side you have deserted. 

+ To show that albeit they had themselves drawn near, still all had pro- 
ceeded from the grace of God, he has added παρεδόθητε. 


| 


| 


196 CHAPTER VI. v. 18, 19. 


might be adduced as an instance of agreement. The latter verb, 
however, points directly to the fact, that a free determination of the 
will preceded, and brought the Christian into this state of holy bond- 
age; and, in like manner, in the present verse, the ὑπηχούσατεν espe- 
cially as connected with ἐκ καρδίας, lays emphasis on what the 
whole train of argumentation shows to be emphatic, the exercise of 
the free will in the first acceptance of forgiveness and compliance 
with the purpose of salvation. We do not hesitate, therefore, to 
adopt the first mode of construction. The formula παξαδυδόναν τινί τὺ 
means, to teach, make known. Acts xvi. 4, 1 Cor. xi. 2, xv. 3, 2 Pet. 
ii. 21. So in Latin, tradere disciplinam. Grotius adopts a totally 
different construction, taking εἰς τύπον διδαχῆς as equivalent to xara 
τύπον, and translating: obedistis ad eum modum quem Evangelium 
prescribit, quique vobis est traditus. 

τύπος διδαχῆς. Compare Rom. ii. 20, μόρφωσις τῆς γνώσεως, 2 Tim. 
1.18, ὑποτύπωσις ὑγιαινόντων λόγων. Jamblichus, Vita Pyihag. c. 16: 
xOL ἣν αὐτῷ τῆς παϊδεύσεως ὃ τύπος τοιοῦτος χαὺὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀποβλέπων. 
6. 23, ἕνεκα τοῦ σαφέστερον γενέσϑαν τὸν τύπον τῆς διδασχαλίας. 

tx καρδίας. ‘This supplement was necessary for the purpose of 
showing the obligation of abiding true to him, to whom we have 
made a free-will surrender of ourselves. 

V..18. ἐδουλώθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνη denotes the existing condition of de- 
pendence. Grotius mistakes when he says with respect to δικαιο- 
ovvy: Justitia, id est laus pro justitia. ‘To this Caloy. rightly 
answers: Justitia notat proprie justitiam, 7. e. sanctitatem vite. 
Obedimus enim non ut laudem reportemus vel gloriam sed ut justi 
et sancti simus. 

| V. 19. The expression ἐδουλώθητε, ye became the servants of 
righteousness, was extraordinary. ‘There was a possibility of its 
giving rise to some kind of legal notion, and hence Paul deems it 
necessary to resolve it into the more ordinary expression of ‘ yield- 
ing the members to the service of righteousness.”” ’Av6edmuvov λέγω. 
This adjective has a double signification, which must here be taken 
into consideration. Sometimes it means, ‘“ what man’s powers are 
equal to. Pollux expounds it in this sense by the synonymes τὸ 
χοῦφον, evpoeove So a Greek would say, ἀνθοώπινα apag7avew, Xe- 
nophon Cyrop. 1. iii. 6. 1. 5. 22. It is thus used, 1 Cor. x. 13, (com- 
pare in the Hebrew, 2Sam. vii. 14.) This sense has been adopted, 
in the present passage, by Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Bucer, 
and Wetstein, who deem that Paul designs to show the practicability 
of what he requires of them, quasi, “" 1 exact of you nothing above 
your powers.”” Theodoret: Τῇ pices ered τὴν παξαίνεσιν. οἶδα yae 
τὰ ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώματι κινούμενα πάθη. What the Apostle here en- 
joins, viz. to become δοῦλος τῆς δυκαιοσύνης, is however something of 
an arduous nature, is properly a πνευματικὸν» Which he would scarcely 


* I proportion my admonition to human nature, aware of the passions that 
work in the mortal body. 


CHAPTER VI. v. 19. 197 


have described as light and easy. We adhere, accordingly, to the 
usual sense in which he employs the word, and of which we have 
treated, c. ili. 5. Agreeably to that, it would mean, ‘I avail myself 
of the more usual manner of thinking and speaking.”’ But this again 
may have various shades of signification, in determining which we 
require to take into consideration the διὼ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς capxds, by 
which either moral or intellectual imperfection may be chiefly de- 
signed. In the latter case the sense would be as follows: ‘The fee- 
bleness of your human nature makes it necessary for me to select 
very plain images from ordinary life. Grotius: Sensus spirituales 
exprimo per similitudines rerum vulgarium et vobis notarum. By 
this interpretation, the Apostle points to the slender power of com- 
prehension possessed by the Romans. ‘The word σὰρξ would not 
then, however, be suitable, for it always indicates general humanity. 
The exposition is better, and more signficant when we take ἀσϑένεια 
τῆς σαρχὸς in a moral sense, the earthly carnal mind. ‘To that, holi- 
ness appears as a dovaéca, but to the man spiritually enlightened, to 
the πνευματυκχὸς, itis the true liberty. Agreeably to this view, the 
ἀνδρώπινος refers more to the way of thinking common amongst men. 
Erasmus, Beza, Seb. Schmidt take it up as follows: “ On account of 
your ungodly dispositions, you need powerful correctives; I require 
to paint the matter to you in strong colours.” 

ὥσπερ παρμεστήσατε.  Cicumenius: Πολλῷ μὲν μείζονα ἔδεν τῷ 
Χριστῷ τὴν δουλείαν παρασχεῖν καὶ τῇ δυκχαιοσύνῃ, ἥπερ ὅσην παρέσχετε 
τῇ ἀκχαθαξσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομία, πλὴν διὰ τὴν ἀσϑένειαν τῇς σαρκὸς» τὴν 
ἴσην ἀπαιτὼ.Σ How beautiful is the comment of Anselm: Sicut 
ad peccandum vos nullus cogebat timor, sed ipsius libido voluptasque 
peccati, sic ad juste vivendum non vos supplicii metus urgeat, sed 
dueat delectatio justitie. Sicut ergo ille iniquissimus, quem ne pene 
quidem temporales deterrent ab immundis operibus, ita justissimus 
ille, qui ne peenarum puidem temporalium timore revocatur a sanctis 
operibus. 

axaSagova generally means Just, but that signification may here be 
extended. Calvin supposes it to denote chiefly sensual sins, as 
ἀνομία does acts of violence. 

εἰς τὴν ἀνωμίαν must be interpreted according to the parallel ex- 
pression opposed to it, sis ἁγιασμόν. Agreeably to this, the εἰς ex- 
presses the purpose. The first ἀνομία is the lawless, unbridled desire; 
the second denotes the continual manifestations of such inordinate 
feelings as they spring up within, and of which man makes his 
members the instruments. So Beza, Baumgarten, and Mosheim. 
Heumann translates accurately, “so that ye became sinners.”’ ‘Theo- 
phylact takes a contrary view: Οὐ γὰρ ὁπηνίκα τινὰ ἁμαρτίαν ἐπουήσατε; 
ἵστασϑε AXEL ταὐτης» ἀλλ᾽ ὑπέχχαυμα ταὺὐτην ἔχε7ε εἰς 70 ἐπὶ πλέον ἄνο- 


_* You are bound to yield to Christ and to righteousness, a far greater ser- 
vice, than that which you have given to uncleanness; on account of the 
weakness of your flesh, however, I only ask that it shall be equal. 


Pe Rislameeen 


198 CHAPTER VI. v. 20. 


wecy.* And in this he is followed by Luther, Erasmus, and many 
others. But both the parallelism forbids, and the language scarce 
admits of it, for it would require ἐξ ἀνομίας εἰς ἀνομίαν. The sense 
accordingly is, ** As formerly your sensual passions always found in 
your members instruments to accomplish their purposes, actually 
proceeding to forbidden acts, now let your members be willing in- 
struments of the holy emotions of your heart, for the promotion of 
holiness.” 


PART Lid. 


PROSPECT OF THE FINAL CONSUMMATION, IN WHICH HOLINESS IS TO 
BE REWARDED. v. 20—23. 


' V.20. After the Apostle has thus shown that it lies in the very 


πιο of Christianity to produce progressive holiness, he now en- 


| courages to the pursuit of it, by intimating what is to be its final 
lissue. The yap, introducing the consideration by which Christians 
are to be strengthened in holiness, refers to what is said in verse 22d 
of the reward which awaits them. ᾿Ελεύϑερου Are τῇ δικαιοσῦνῃ. Most 
expositors, both ancient and modern, ex. g. Origen, Theophylact, 
Cicumenius, Beza. and Limborch, look upon this second member of 
the verse as merely confirmatory of the first, “" While engaged in 
the service of sin, ye were entirely estranged from holiness,” thus 
making ἐλεύδερου equivalent to, plane alieni. In this case, the verse 
would not agree with that which follows. By reflecting upon the 
connection between the two, it will be manifest that the 20th sug- 
gests something desirable in the service of sin, which, however, the 
21st, by pointing to what is to be the ultimate end of that service, 
again disparages. Now, the advantage connected with the service 
of sin, is freedom from the Divine authority of the law of holiness. 
For, so long as man surrenders himself without reserve to sin, his 
understanding is more and more obscured, and he becomes propor- 
tionally less alive to the upbraiding voice of conscience, and also, in 
some sort, as he deems, stands in no relation to holiness. This 
state of license, if desirable at all, the Apostle allows; only he now, 
at verse 21st, inquires what is to be the issue of it. Conformably 
with this view, we give the connection of the two verses as follows. 
**While engaged in the service of sin, you possessed, it is true, the 
advantage of standing entirely out of all subjection to righteousness, . 
but let us look at what is to be the final result.’? Erasmus states the 


* When you committed a sin, you did not stop at that, it did but prove an 
incentive to further transgression. 


CHAPTER VI. V. 21. 199 


meaning of the verses correctly, although he misapprehends their 
connection: Quamdiu versabamini in paganismo, quoniam serviebatis 
peccato, videbamini a justitia alieni, neque quidquam illi debere, cu 
nondum eratis addicti. Nune nihil est quod possit pretexi. Quodsi 
ipsa recti natura parum vos movet, fructum obsequii longe diversissi- 
mum expendite, qui utrumque servitutis genus estis experti. Upon 
the ethical import of this declaration of the Apostle’s, ‘Thomas Aqui- 
nas well remarks: Quantum ad hoe quod dicit ‘ liberi fuistis justitia,’ 
id precipue contingit his qui ex certo proposito peccant. Nam illi 
qui ex infirmitate vel passione peccant aliquo freno justitie retinen- 
tur. Sciendum tamen est, quod iste status habet veram servitutem, 
libertatem autem non veram sed apparentem. Cum enim homo sit 
id quod est secundum rationem, tunc homo vere est servus quando 
ab aliquo extraneo abducitur ab eo quod est rationis. 


V. 21. The Apostle calls Christians to the salutary employment } 


of looking back upon the past, in which they had been unhappy, in | 


order thereby to refresh their remembrance of the noble gifts of grace 
which were now become their portion as disciples of Jesus. Calvin: 
Pii simul atque illuminari incipiunt Christi spiritu, totam vitam pre- 
teritam, quam extra Christum egerunt,damnabilem libenter agnoscunt, 
ac tantum abest ut conentur excusare, ut potius eos sui pudeat. Quin- 
etiam hanc ignominie sue recordationem perpetuo in animum revo- 
cant, quo sic pudefacti verius ac propensius coram Deo humilientur. 
Eo’ οἷς viv ExauoyvveoSe. We have here a choice between two 
modes of construction. ‘The ἐφ᾽ οἷς may be appended to χαρπὸν, and! 
the whole sentence brought within the limits of the question. But) 
on this supposition, we must supply éx τῶν ἔργων τούτων before 9’! 
ois. So Chrysostom, Erasmus, Bengel, and others. It is, however, | 
at once more natural, and far more emphatic, to make the answer | 
commence with ἐφ᾽ ots, supply τοιαῦτα before it, and translate ‘Such | 
fruit as ye are now ashamed of.’ ‘This construction is confirmed 
by the circumstance, that τὸ γὰρ τέλος immediately succeeds ἐπαυσχὺ- 


veode. So Clemens Alexandrinus, Luther, Heumann, and others. | 
Calvin very pointedly calls the attention to the fact, that it is at this | 


stage, that shame first enters a man, at the time of sinning, being 
insensible to the degradation to which he is sunk: Innuit enim quam 
ceco nostri amore laboremus, dum peccatorum tenebris sumus obvo- 
luti, qui tantas in nobis sordes non reputemus. Sola est lux Domini, 
que potest oculos nostros aperire, ut perspicere queant latentem in 
carne nostra feeditatem. 1116 igitur demum Christiane philosophie 


\ 


4 


primordiis imbutus est, qui sibi serio displicere, ac sua miseriz vere- / 
eundia confundi bene didicerit. ‘Tandem a consequenti apertius . 
etiamnum indicat quantum erubescere debeant, quum intelligant se | 


fuisse in precipitio mortis et ruine propinquos, imo mortis portas 
ingressos, nisi Dei misericordia retracti essent. } 
τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων Savatos. It would not be improper to place | 
a point of interrogation after ixe(vay and consider ϑάνατος as the an-| 
swer, ᾿ΓῸ τέλος commentators have given a variety of significations. 


200 CHAPTER VI. ν. 22, 23. 


In the LXX. it stands for D2 50 and 1}. Some make it synony- 
mous with xaends. Erasmus and Schmidt: vectigal. Others, as 
Carpzovius and Krebs, penalty. We ought not, however, to give it 
a different signification from what it bears shortly after in reference 
to δικαιοσύνη. ‘There it is different from χαφςπὸς, and signifies issue, 
termination. Chr. Schmid: ultima linea flagitiorum. It is used in 
the same sense, Phil. iii. 19; 2 Cor. xi. 15. Θάνατος as a counterpart 
to ζωὴ αἰώνιος, implies everlasting misery. 

V. 22. εἰς ἁγιασμόν. The proposition is here susceptible of a two- 
fold interpretation. Either it may be used instead of ἐν, which 
would make the sense, ‘‘ In holiness there is so much bliss, that it is 
its own remuneration.”” Or the εἰς really expresses the end or con- 
summation of the reward itself, just as the Hebrew 5 often forms 
supplementary clauses in the same sense. In this view, Seb. 
Schmidt, with little propriety, considers good works to be the fruit 
which is meant. It would be far better, however, to understand the 
influences of the Holy Spirit, or divinely imparted strength to do 
good, by which alone holiness is possible. ‘The common opinion 

\ is, that xaenis εἰς ἁγιασμὸν 15 equivalent to xaends ἁγιασμοῦ. To δὲ 
τέλος. (ο.: "Ex τῶν δεδομένων τὰ περοσδοχώμετα πιστοῦται; τοὐτέστυν 
ἀπὸ ἁγιασμοῦ τὴν αἰώνιον Gary. 

V. 23. ᾿Οψώνιον means ὦ soldier’s pays; and the phrase is inasmuch 
the more appropriate, as the Apostle had represented the sinner as 
in subjection to sin. At the time a man surrenders himself to its 
‘sway, it promises, indeed, something very different, but while he 

{seeks what is durable, sin deceives him with apparent blessings, 
/ which prove afterwards to be destruction, his true nature being alto- 
' gether overlooked in the enjoyment they impart. ‘There is great 
' beauty in the Apostle using, on the side of holiness, the word χάξισ- 
μα as the counterpart to this ὀψώνιον. For sin being really hostile to 
human nature, promises him reward, whereas holiness, which alone 
satisfies it, calls upon him for obedience, and allows him to regard 
..the happiness connected with that, only as a gift of grace. Augus- 
tine, (Ep. 105, ad Sixtum): Adversus elationis pestem vigilantissime 
militans, stipendium inquit peccati mors. MRecte stipendium, quia 
debetur, quia digne retribuitur, quia meritum redditur. Deinde ne 
justitia de humano se extolleret bono merito, sicut humanum malum 
non dubitatur esse peccatum, gratia inquit Dei, vita eterna. It is 
too learned and hence incorrect, when Grotius and Wetstein interpret 
χάρισμα in the military sense of a bounty, in contrast to ὀψώνιον, the 


proper pay. 


CHAPTER SEVENTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


Havine maintained, in the foregoing chapter, that, just because they are no 
longer under the law, but under grace, Christians certainly achieve sanctifi- 
cation, Paul now farther seeks to show, that, in point of fact, they no more 
stand in any relation whatever to the law as an incitement to holiness; and 
how, so long as a man is urged by the law, and by that only, a continual 
struggle will indeed be carried on within him; but that, owing to the absence 
of all affection for the commandment, that struggle, instead of advancing 
him in holiness, only ends in grief and despair, at the incurable variance 
which is felt. 


DIVISION. 


1. Christians are actually nowise connected with the Law as an impellent to 
what is good, and for that very reason are holier than the man who is 
subject to it. V. 1—6. 

2. The relation of the Law to the perverse inclinations of the human will is 
exhibited; from which it appears, that in itself the Law is holy, and that 
only the wrong bias of their wills makes men take occasion from it to 
sin, but that, just on that account, the law is incapable of operating holi- 
ness. It discloses, but it cannot do away the discord. V.7—25. 


Poh Rel cB: 


CHRISTIANS HAVE ACTUALLY NO SORT OF CONNECTION AT ALL WITH 
THE LAW AS AN INCITEMENT TO GOODNESS, AND FOR THAT VERY 
REASON, THEY ARE HOLIER THAN THE MAN WHO STANDS UNDER IT. 
Vv. 1—6. 


V. 1. Ir is true that, at the close of the previous chapter, the 
Apostle had spoken less of the relation of νόμος to Christ, than of the 
ἁμαρτία and the oapé The point from which he had set out, however, 
just was, that so long as a man continues under the νόμος, the ἁμαρτία 
is not slain. ‘There is, hence, a good connection, when he now 
shows, that the Jaw is no longer of use as an efficient means of sanc- 
tification to Christians, but that their sanctification must henceforward 
be altogether the result of grace; inasmuch as it is grace which ob- 
jectively is proposed to man, and which subjectively serves him as 
the inward spring of action. Now, in order to show how Christians 

26 


202 CHAPTER VII. Vv. l. 


are absolved from the law, as the impulsive means of sanctification, 
he here, as elsewhere, abstains from stating abstract ideas, and seeks 
to make the matter intelligible by again employing a figure. In this 
figure, however, there is much obscurity, and hence the elucidations 
it has received, are manifold and various. We shall take notice of 
the variations of opinion upon the several points, when we come to 
the explanation of these. Of the views which have been taken of the 
whole, the two most diverse—we name them after their most ancient 
authors—are those of Origen and Augustine. ‘The latter expresses 
himself as follows, in Prop. 36: Cum ergo tria sint, anima, tanquam 
mulier, passiones peccatorum tanquam vir, et lex tanquam lex viris 
non ibi peccatis mortuis, tanquam viro mortuo liberari animam dicit, 
sed ipsam animam mori peccato, et liberari a lege, ut sit alterius virl, 
ἢ. 6. Christi, cum mortua fuerit peceato, quod fit, cum adhue manen- 
tibus in nobis desideriis et incitamentis quibusdam ad peccandum, 
non obedimus tamen, nec consentimus, mente servientes legi Dei. 
This exposition is followed by Justinian, Toletus and Beza, who 
says: ‘here are two marriages. In the first the old man is the wife, 
predominating sinful desires the husband, transgressions of every 
kind the offspring. In the second, the mew man is the wife, Christ, 
the husband, and the fruits of the Spirit—Gal. v. 22—are the chil- 
dren. If this exposition be followed, the image gives rise to less 
difficulty than when it is otherwise explained. ‘The meaning is then 
as follows: Your former husband was sin. In respect of its conse- 
quences, that has been done away by Christ upon the cross, which 
necessarily leads to the removal of the thing itself. Ye are, hence, 
absolved from the conjugal union. But, in regard sin has been put 
to death, you, on your side, bear to it the relation of persons dead. 
In adopting this explanation of the passage, we must suppose that the 
Apostle means to repeat once more, under other figures, what he had 
last delivered in the close of the previous chapter. Although, how- 
ever, the similitude itself, when thus explained, occasions no difficulty, 
the connection is completely against doing so, inasmuch as the whole 
7th chap., from the 7th verse, treats throughout of the relation of the 
moral law, and not of that of sin to man. It must be added, that the 
τῷ νόμῳ in the 4th, and the ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμον in the 6th verse, are in a 
highly unnatural way, understood of the marriage law, and the first 
mention allowed to be made of the moral law is at verse 6th; from 
which it would appear that the weighty inquiry in the 7th, is but 
casually appended. On the contrary, there is far more in favour of 
the other explanation which is found in Origen, Chrysostom, Gcu- 
menius, Theodoret, Ambrose and Hilary, as has been adopted by 
Thom. Aquinas, Calvin, Bucer and others. It is as follows: Man is 
represented as the female standing in need of a husband, in as much’ 
as he can only rest in some one above himself, as the rule of his life. 
Formerly, that husband was the moral law; now, however, it has lost 
all its efficacy as a lord and master, and is become as good as dead 
to man, who accordingly is at liberty, and under obligation to choose 


CHAPTER VII. V. 1. 203 


for himself another. Such is the train of thought so far as verse 4. 
There the Apostle suddenly reverses the comparison, when he says, 
** Ye have become dead to the law.’’ ‘Two similitudes thus blend 
together. Nor is it difficult to explain the sudden transition from 
the one to the other, when we take into consideration the vivacity of 
his character, and the fact, that on both sides the comparison is en- 
tirely just. Compare Stier, Beitr. zu gl. Schriftverst. Th. 2. S. 287. 
Chrysostom and Theophylact: Td ἀκόλουϑον ἦν εἰπεῖν, Ὥστε ἀδελφοί, 
οὐ xvevever ὑμῶν ὁ νόμος" ἀπέϑανε yae. "AAA οὐχ εὔπεν οὕτως, ἵνα μὴ 
πλήξῃ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, ἀλλὰ τὴν γυναῖκα εἰσάγεν τελευτήσασαν, τουτέστιν» 
αὐτούς, ὥστε διπλῆς ἀπολαύειν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. Ei γὰρ τελευτήσαντος τοῦ 
ἀνδρὸς ἀπήλλακται τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ νόμου; πολλῷ μάλλον ἡλευθέρωταινγ ὅταν 
καὶ αὐτὴ τετελευτηχυία φαίνηται. ἢ ν 

As to the meaning οἵ νόμος, the Apostle is here addressing Jews 
and Judaising converts, and hence it must denote primarily the Mo- 
saic law, not, however, with reference to its matter but to its form, 
2. 6. in 80 far as it is daw, and imposes an external obligation. Com- 
pare the comment atc. iii. 20. As this character, however, of out- 
wardly binding, instead of quickening from within, belongs to every 
moral law, there lies at the bottom of this reasoning something which 
holds true of all times and of all men. 

ἀδελφοὶ, (γινώσκουσι γὰρ νόμον λαλὼ) κτλ. The Apostle makes this 
so affectionate preface, in order to engrave what he is about to say, 
deeply upon the heart. ‘The fact of his ascribing a knowledge of the 
law to those whom he addresses, does not altogether prove that they 
were Jewish Christians. Many of the heathen converts had pre- 
viously been proselytes to Judaism, and hence were acquainted with 
the Law. ‘The νόμος accordingly here signifies the Law of Moses. 
Similar is the address, Gal. iv. 21. It may, however, be inquired, 
to what part of the Law the Apostle refers. ‘The majority of ex- 
positors suppose him to have in his eye the Law of marriage, Deut. 
v. 18; Lev. xx. 10. It is manifest, however, that it is solely in regard 
to verse 1, that the Apostle appeals to the hearers’ knowledge of the 
law; for he appends verse 2d merely as a case of subsumption to 
verse Ist. Accordingly, he seems to allude to the Talmudic axiom 
of law, Mynn yD 232 DANN ΠΡ) 2, «When man dies he is no more 
under the obligation of the commandments.” With this axiom 
heathen proselytes to Judaism, who required to attend to such mat- 
ters, might have well been acquainted. 

ὅτι 6 νόμος xvevevere It would be wrong, with Chr. Schmid to un- 
derstand by the νόμος here, the Law of marriage. It much rather 
means the whole Mosaic Law. And hence Carpzov goes still farther 


* The right thing to have said was, Wherefore, brethren, the law reigns 
not over you, for it has died. But the Apostle does not say that, in order not 
to wound the Jews. He introduces the wife, 7. 6. themselves, as having ex- 
pired, so as to reap the twofold liberty. For if by the death of the husband, 
she has been made to pass from the power of the law, much more has she 
been freed when even herself is shown as dead. 


204 CHAPTER Vit. v. 1, 2, 3. 


astray when he not merely interprets νόμος, the marriage law, but 
considers ἀνϑεώπος to mean the wife, and then to the verb ζῇ supplies 
ὁ ἄνδεωπος, 1. 6. the husband, giving already to the words the special 
sense: The law of marriage binds the wife so long as the husband 
liveth. Ina manner no less forced, others, as Hammond and Elsner, 
connect dvSeanov With νόμος in the sense of ἀνδϑεώπινος. 

ἐφ ὅσον yeovoy ζῇ. ‘I'he question here is, What shall we supply as 
subject to Gy? Origen, Ambrose, and in later times Erasmus, Gro- 
tius and Koppe suppose νόμος. But far more properly Augustine, 
CEcumenius, ‘Thom. Aquinas and many more supply dvSeunos. This 
appears partly from the {vce dvder, which, in verse 2, is immediately 
linked to the present by the yae, and partly from the parallel passage, 
1 Cor. vii. 39. It must indeed be confessed, that, as in that case it 
is the husband who is properly intended, one would have expected 
the Apostle to speak of the death of the wife, by which the husband 
is set free from the dominion of the law, and for that reason even the 
interpreters who supply ἀνϑέωπος, are of opinion that the Apostle has 
in view the turn given to the similitude in verse fourth. This, how- 
ever, is by no means necessary. As Gicumenius observes, Paul, in so 
general a statement of the proposition, is at liberty to make either the 
man or the woman die, and the proposition is to be conceived in the 
following more general form: Wherever death takes place, the obli- 
gation of law ceases. Κυξιεύευ signifies, ‘*has legal power.’ In the 
writings of the Rabbins also we find the law personified. See R. 
Ismael, De Anima, c. 7. 

V. 2. The yae shows, that the confirmation of the general propo- 
sition now follows. 

inovdeos. ‘This word appears in profane authors (See Raphelius 
and Wetstein,) as well as in the Apocrypha. LEcclesiasticus ix. 8; 
ΧΙ. 26, It has even asynonyme in the Hebrew, Numb. v. 29, ΓΙ 
pnn ws, which the LXX., in like manner, render ὕπανδρος. 

ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ. The Talmud, Tr. Kidduschin, Fol. ii. 1, 
has the following words: ‘‘A woman is restored to herself, (becomes 
free) by divorcement and the husband’s demise.”’ 

δέδεται νόμῳ by the precept relating to marriage in the Law of 
Moses. Karneynzor, Cicumenius: ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπολέλυται, ἠλευθέρωται. 
In the LXX. the word is only found in the sense fo hinder, but ἃ 
corresponding phrase jp 203 in the Chaldaic and Rabbinical dialeets, 
has in both the same sense of to be freed. So likewise in the New 
Testament, verse 6 below, and Gal. v. 4. Perfectly synonymous is 
the expression 17) ‘703, in the passage of the Talmud, Berachoth ec. 
2, where R. Gamaliel says: “I will not let you persuade me to be 
released, even for a moment from the law of God.”’ 

"And τοῦ νόμου τοῦ avdeds, Grotius pertinently expounds: A lege 
que viro consulebat and Beza: Ab imperio viri, ab eo vinculo quod 
eam ad virum astringebat. 

V. 3. χεηματίζω used in the Act. and Mid. in the sense fo acquire 
or bear a name, is found in profane authors, and the New Testament, 


CHAPTER VII. v. 4, 5. 205 


Acts xi. 26. γίνεσθαι ἀνδρὶ ἑτέξῳ is a Hebraism, see LXX., Lev. xxii. 
11. Tod μὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν» the customary Hebrew form instead of ὥστε. 
V. 4. Paul now advances to the application of his comparison. 
Inasmuch as, strictly speaking, it ought to have been said, The law 
is become dead to you, the question arises, in how far he could have 
said so with truth? Origen thinks, that as the Old ‘Testament con- 
tained only an intimation of the glory of the New, the σκιά has been 
done away by the σῶμα, Heb. x. 1. But far better does St. Paul 
give us the answer to this question at Col. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 15. Man 
was unable to realize the ideal of holiness, perfectly fulfilling all the 
demands of thelaw. Christ appeared and manifested perfect holiness. 
Objectively, the believer contemplates this as his own, while sub- 
jectively it is transfused into him by the πνεῦμα τοὺ Xevorov. In so 
far, the law is no longer judge over man, its claims are satisfied. See 
Augustine c. Faust. |. xv.c. 8. The Apostle, however, maintains 
also the converse of the proposition, viz. that we are dead to the 
law. This is the natural consequence of the law being dead to us. 
For if, objectively, we have the assurance that it has no more any 
judicial authority over us, it follows as a natural result, that we have 
no more to consider ourselves inwardly as standing in relation to it 
as to our judge. 
τῷ νόμῳ is, in accordance with Augustine’s exposition which we 
have stated above, understood by Justinian to mean the law of mar- 
riage, while Beza contends that it is here synonymous with ἁμαφτία; 
the causa-efficiens being per meton. placed pro effecto, which no man 
will believe. 
διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Xevorov. Certain Catholic expositors interpret 
σῶμα, the mystical body of Christ, ‘he church, into which Christians 
are incorporated by baptism. But it is perfectly clear that Paul 
means the crucified body of Christ, by which the claim of the law 
for the expiation of guilt, is satisfied. Of similar import are the texts 
Col. i. 22, ii. 14;°1 Pet. ii. 24; Heb. x. 5, 10; Eph. ii. 15. 
τῷ ἐκ vexeav ἐγεφθέντι forms a gentle contrast to σῶμα, requiring to 
have ϑανατωδὲν Χριστοῦ understood. ‘The risen Saviour is the second 
spouse of the soul, and also the champion who separates it by death 
from the first, whom, too, by his own death, he as it were slays. 
Paul brings forward the resurrection, inasmuch as it is since that 
event that Christ has obtained fulness of power to conduct the re- 
_ deemed to their destination, and especially to communicate to them 
the energies necessary for a new life. 
iva καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ Θεῷ. Theodoret: καί ἐπειδὴ συνάφειαν xai 
γάμον τὴν εἰς τὸν Ἱζύριον προσηγόρευσε πύστιυν; εἰκότως δεύχνυσυ καὶ τὸν τοῦ 
γάμου χαρπόν. Erasmus: Ita nune felicius nacti matrimonium, fruc- 
tum edatis, Deo socero Christoque Sponso dignum. God is in fact 
represented as the head of a family, who unites the redeemed with 
Christ as with their Bridegroom. 
V. 5. That this union of man with Christ, instead of with the law, 
has likewise become absolutely indispensable, in order to the attain- 


206 CHAPTER VII. Vv. 5. 


ment of real holiness, Paul now proves by appealing to the experience 
of Christians in their former state, in which indwelling sin manifested 
so great a power. 

ore yap nuev ἐν τῇ oapxc. That the Apostle intends by this expres- 
sion, life before conversion, is obvious: In the more special explana- 
tion, notwithstanding, interpreters deviate from each other. ‘Theo- 
doret, GEcumenius, Grotius and Schleusner understand at once by 
σάρξ, the Old Testament. But although σάρξ, in contrast with πνεῦμα; 
may by a derivative process, be referred to the Old Testament theo- 
eracy, still the primitive signification is never to be overlooked. 
Primarily, σάρξ denotes the condition in which man, according to his 
historical connection, finds himself by nature placed, and wherein he 
is destitute of the powers of divine life. Now, in as far as this was 
the case with the subjects of the Old Testament theocracy, in so far 
may that entire dispensation be termed Sap&. Ἔν σαρκὶ ecrvac, ch. vill. 
8, 9, equivalent to xara σάρχα πεξιπατεῦν, 6. Vili. 5, 13. Compare 
commentary onc. vii. 14, andi. 8. With great precision, Calvin: 
Solis nature dotibus esse preditum, sine singulari gratia, qua electos 
suos Deus dignatur. Chrysostom: Οὐχ εἶπεν, ὅτε quev ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, 
πανταχοῦ Φειδόμενος δοῦναν aigetexors λαβήν᾽ GAA’, ὅτε ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαξκχί» 
τουτέστιν ταῖς mMovyears πράξεσι; τῷ σαδχιχῷ βίῳ. τοῦτο δὲ εἰπὼν, οὔτε 
GLTLOY ELYaL φησιν ἁμαρτημάτων τὸν νόμον; οὔτε ἀπαλλάτϑευν αὐτὸν ἄπεχ- 
θείας. κατήγόξου yae τάξιν ἐπεύχε πυκξοῦ, ἀπογυμνῶν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. 
ὃ γὰς τῷ ἐὸν πείθεσθαι βουλομένῳ πλείονω ἐπιτάττων, πλεονάζειν τὸ 
πάραπτωμα.ἢ 

τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαξτιῶν, passions, affections. So used by pro- 
fane authors, and also in Gal. v. 24, Xenophon, Cyr. 3, 1, 10: πά- 
θημά ov λέγεις τῆς YAS evar τὴν σωφροσύνην, ὥσπερ λύυπην--οοὺ μάθημα. 

τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου. Chrysostom and Carpzov here falsely supply 
φαινόμενα OF γνωστά. Locke takes the διὰ as denoting the state: 
«That remained in us wnder the law;’’ in like manner, as Rom. ii. 
27. Michaelis follows him and says: ‘* Which remain along with 
the law.”” But there are strong reasons for supplying γεγονότα, 
according to verse 8. Calvin: Hominis perversitas, quo magis jus- 
titi repagulis coercetur, eo furiosius erumpit. Here, however, as 
little as in the 8th verse, has the Apostle said, ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου, the law 
being only the occasional cause. 

évmeyerto ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν. Some, as for example Outhof, would 
have ἐνηέγεῖτο understood in a passive sense, which is doubtless 
allowable. It appears, however, innumerable times in the New 
Testament as middle, and no less in profane writers, (Raphel. Not. 
Polyb.), and hence is here better taken as such. Erasmus observes 


* He did not say, “ When we were in the law,” always avoiding to give a 
handle to heretics; but “ When we were in the flesh,” ὁ, 6. in evil works, a 
carnal life. And by so saying, he neither calls the law the cause of sins, nor 
totally exempts it from hatred. For it acts the part of a stern accuser by ex- 
posing sins; for whoever multiplies commands to one who refuses the least 
obedience, thereby augments his transgression. 


CHAPTER VII. V. 9, 6. 207 


upon it: Secreto agebant, nam occulta vis dicitur évéeyev velut in 
semine, et vis mentis in homine. The ἐν before μέλεσι is translated by 
Grotius through; so that the members, as formerly in the 6th chap- 
ter, are considered as instruments. We take it in its proper signi- 
fication, comparing verse 23. ‘The Apostle figures the sinful desire 
as a poison, which, produced in the inmost recesses of the will, per- 
vades, in course, the entire man, and takes into its service all his 
powers both of mind and body. Limborch: Sub membris etiam 
comprehenduntur intellectus et voluntas. Chrysostom: “Iva μηδὲ τῆς 
OUXOS κατηγοξήσῃ: οὐκ εὖπεν; ἃ ἐνέφγει τὰ μέλη; ἀλλ᾽ ἃ ἐνηξγεῦτο ἐν τοῖς 
μέχεσιν ἡμῶν' δεικνὺς ἑτέφωθεν οὖσαν τῆς πονηξίας τὴν ἀρχὴν; ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν- 
εφγούντων λογισμὼν; οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνεῤδγουμένων μελῶν. Ἢ μὲν yae ψυχὴ 
τεχνίτου τάξιν ἐπεῖχε; xOaeas δὲ τῆς σαφκὸς ἡ Φύσις, οὕτως ἠχοῦσα ὡς 
ἠνάγκαξεν ὃ τεχνίτης. Melancthon: Primum enim illa ingens dubita- 
tio, que in omnium hominum animis heret, certe est eflicax inmem- 
bris, quia propter illam dubitationem ruunt homines contra voluntatem 
Dei, ut, quia non confidunt Deo, multa faciunt metu et diffidentia 
contra voluntatem Dei. Hane autem diffidentiam auget Lex, que, 
quia semper accusat, facit ut corda sint aversa Deo, fugiant Deum, 
non invocent, non confidant........Est autem hic locus diligenter ob- 
servandus, ut discamus illam dubitationem esse peccatum, ut repug- 
nemus et erigamus nos Evangelio, et sciamus esse culéum Det, in 
illos terroribus repugnare dubitutioni et diffidentiz.” A great and 
novel doctrine! 

εἰς τὸ καφποφορῆσαι τῷ ϑανάτῳ. The wretchedness of sin is per- 
sonified and set in opposition to God in verse 4th, as if it in some 
sort felt satisfaction when the sinner plunges into the love of sin. 
The law could do no more than awaken the consciousness of discord. 
Nay often was the pleasure of sinning even heightened by the cer- 
tainty of its being forbidden, verse 8; and hence, by means of the 
law, the ϑάνατος» or human wretchedness, was but raised to its highest 
pitch. 

V. 6. In contrast with that legal condition, Paul now shows how 
Christians, possessed of a new element of life, serve God and strive 
after holiness. We have first to take the reading into consideration. 
᾿Αποθανοντες is found in A C, and in a great many minor codices, as 
is also the case with the Greek fathers and Rufinus. But DEF 
G, the Vulgate and the majority of the Latin fathers read cov ϑανάτου. 
In fine, it was said that ἀποϑανόντος was in Chrysostom, and on that 
supposition Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Vitringa and various others re- 
ceived it into the text, although without the sanction of any codex. 
It is true that, at first sight, it does appear as if Chrysostom had so 


* That he might also not accuse the flesh, he did not say, “which our 
members work,” but which “did work in our members,” showing that the 
principle of evil is from a foreign source, from our thoughts that work, and 
not from our members that are wrought upon. For the soul does the office 
of μα artist, and the flesh is as it were a lyre which sounds as the artist 
makes it. 


208 CHAPTER VII. v. 6. 


written, for he makes the following note: ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν, ὁ δεσμὸς δὲ οὔ 
κατειχόμεθα; ἐνεχρώθη καὶ Sveppwn, ὥστε τὸν κατέχοντα μηδὲν κατέχειν 
λοιχίὸν; τουτέστι; τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. ἢ Previously, however, he had said: 
καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς κατηξγήθημεν: τοῦ κατεχομένου maga τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀνθρώπου 
παλαιοῦ ἀποθανόντος χαὶ ταφέντος. t From this it appears, that what he 
means to express is: Seeing that the old man is dead in regard to the 
fetter of sin which bound him, that fetter is likewise dead in regard 
to him. Hence he has construed: ἀποθανόντες meds ἐκεῖνο ἔν ᾧ 
xarecyouesa. In like manner, as he had before supposed a recip- 
rocal compact between the law and man, so here he does the same 
between sinand man. ‘This sense is fully expressed by Theophylact: 
Οὐχ εἴπον; ὅτι xatney7dy ὃ νόμος; (va μὴ πλήξῃ» τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους" ἀλλὰ χα- 
τηξγήδημεν ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ TOL νόμου; ὃ ἐστιν, ἀπελύϑημεν ἀποδανόντες, καὺ 
VEXEOL καὶ ἀχίνητου γενόμενου τ δὸς EXELVO τὸ πξαγμα ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεϑα- 
Ἂν αὐτὴ yae οἷόν tow δεσμῷ κατειχόμεδα. ‘The external authori- 
ties, therefore, speak decisively, for ἀπαϑδϑανόντ ες. which coincides 
appropriately with the t3avara3qze of verse 4; so that the comparison 
there remains unchanged, inasmuch as man is still represented as the 
defunct party. We have to add, that the unusual hypallage of ἀπο- 
δϑανόντες affords us a simple explanation of the change of reading. 
For we have to conceive the ἀποϑανόντες placed after νυνὺ δὲ at the top 
of the verse. Most inconsiderately did Semler propose to banish the 
disputed word from the text. The χατέχεσδαν corresponds with the 
xvevepe, Which, in verse Ist, was ascribed to the law. 

ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος. ‘The genitive is the genitivus exegeticus, 
in anew way, i.e. by means of a new element of spiritual life. 
Correctly Calvin: Spiritum liter opponit, quia antequam ad Dei 
voluntatem voluntas nostra per spiritum sanctum formata sit, non 
habemus in Lege nisi externam literam, que frenum quidem exter- 
nis nostris actionibus injicit, concupiscentiz autem nostre furorem 
minime cohibet. Melancthon: Ideo dicitur litera, quia non est verus 
et vivus motus animi, sed est ofiosa imitatio interior vel exterior, 
nec ibi potest esse vera invocatio, ubi cor non apprehendit remissio- 
nem peccatorum. ‘To carry the proposition to its height, one might 
say: All the good deeds of the man under the law are hypocritical, 
inasmuch as they are but a dead copying of a command which stands 
opposed to the inclinations of his own will; and hence, that God, 
whose life is holiness itself, must first, by means of faith in the redemp- 
tion, have become the life of man, in order that human holiness may 


* As if he had said, The bond, by which we were held, has been put to 
death and broken, so that that which once detained us, even sin, detains us 
no more. 

+ And how are we absolved? By the old man, who was held by sin, being 
put to death and buried. 

+ He does not say, The law has been absolved, for fear of offending the 
Jews, but We have been absolved from the law, that is, we have escaped from 
it by dying, and becoming extinct and motionless with respect to that thing 
by which we were detained; for in it we were held as by a bond. 


CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 209 


emanate from spontaneous impulse. ‘Thus Augustine very per- 
tinently says, that the old man is sub lege, the new man cum lege. 
Compare Usteri Paul. Lehrb. 5. 31. 


PAK Tre 


VIEW OF THE RELATION OF THE LAW TO THE PERVERTED INCLINA- 
TIONS OF THE WILL OF MAN. FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT IN 
ITSELF THE LAW IS HOLY, AND THAT IT IS ONLY THE WRONG BIAS 
OF THEIR WILL WHICH MAKES MEN TAKE FROM IT OCCASION OF 
SINNING; BUT THAT ON THAT VERY ACCOUNT IT IS INCAPABLE OF 
OPERATING HOLINESS. IT DISCOVERS, BUT IT CANNOT DO AWAY THE 
DISCORD. v. 7—25. 


V.7. The Apostle had before refuted the opinion, that the law 
was more conducive than grace to sanctification. Here, where he 
bids Christians consult their experience for evidence, that sin lords it 
over man, far more under the law than under grace, the thought might 
arise, May not perhaps the law itself be ungodly? Accordingly, in 
an exposition, which evinces so deep a knowledge of the human 
heart, that one is tempted to say, It is the Creator of the heart him- 
self describing it, the Apostle now paints the relation of the divine 
law to the opposite propensities of man. ‘The inference from what 
he says is, that the divine law is in itself holy and good, but that the 
corrupted disposition of man takes occasion from it to sin; so that 
here moral evil manifests itself to be evil indeed, by its abuse of that 
which is good and divine. On the other hand, however, this very 
statement makes it evident, that the law cannot possibly produce true 
holiness. A commentary upon Paul’s estimate of the worth of the 
Jaw may be found in Aug. c. Faust. 1. xv. c. 8: Lex semper est bona, 
sive obsit hominibus gratiaé vacuis, sive prosit gratia plenis. Que- 
madmodum Sol semper est bonus sive dolentibus oculis noceat, sive 
sanos mulceat. Proinde quod est oculis sanitas ad videndum Solem, 
hoe est gratia mentibus ad implendam Jegem; et sicut oculi sani non 
delectationi Solis moriuntur, sed illis ictibus asperis radiorum, quibus 
egri reverberati in densiores tenebras pellebantur, ifa etiam anima, 
que per caritatem Spiritus salva facta est, non justitie legis mortua 
dicitur, sed illi reatui ac preevaricationi, in quam lex per literam, cum 
gratia defuit, favebat. Compare the beautiful passage from Jerome, 
Quest. vill. ad Algas. See likewise Suiceri Thes. Τ᾿, ii. p. 424. 

Before, however, we advance to the explanation of particulars, 
we must here take up a question, the answer to which has an influ- 
ence upon the comprehension of the whole following section. ‘I'he 


question is this, Whether is the usual condition of a person standing 
27 


210 CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 


under the law, or of one under grace, here described? The different 
views taken of this subject deeply affect doctrine and morals, and 
the pastoral care. If, indeed, the least notice is paid to the connec- 
tion of this section of the 7th chapter, with that which precedes and 
that which follows, it is not possible to explain it of any other than 
of a person standing under the law.” ‘There is much truth in what 
Adam Clarke says in his commentary: ‘If the contrary could be 
proved, the argument of the opponent would go to demonstrate the 
insufficiency of the gospel as well as the law.”” We must, however, 
point the attention to the grounds of our opinion. ‘The thesis of this 
second portion of the chapter stands in verse 5th, where the condition 
of the legalist is described as one altogether sinful. In like manner, 
the thesis of chap. viii. is in verse 6th, where the condition of the 
believer is described, as one of relative freedom from sin. Now, as 
Paul has undertaken the task of pointing out the holiness of the law 
as such, and what is the true ground of sin, it is manifest that he here 
paints the state of the legalist. ‘The 7th and 8th chapters, too, are 
as decidedly counterparts to each other, as are the 5th and 6th verses 
of the former. At the close of that chapter we read under the for- 
mula aga ovy, the compressed result of the section under review. It 
states that to be an insuperable discord. On the other hand, at the 
commencement of the 8th chapter, under the same formula, we read 
the result of something previously stated with respect to the condition 
of the believer, and that is the doing away of condemnation, and a 
walk after the Spirit. ‘The νῦν in this verse corresponds entirely 
with the νῦν in chap. vil. 6. Just, again, as in this manner, the 7th 
and 8th chapters, are throughout opposed the one to the other, so 
likewise several particulars. ‘The complaint, verse 24, answers to 
the thanksgiving, v.25. Whilst the subject of the description speaks 
of himself, verse 23, as taken captive under the law of sin, the sub- 
ject of the description in chap. viii. declares himself at verse 2d to be 
delivered from the law of sin. While chap. vii. 14, an invincible 
strife is maintained between the spiritual law and the carnal mind, 
and the person in verse 18th cannot find how to perform that which 
is good, the believer, according to chap. viii. 4, fulfils the righteous- 
ness of the law by walking after the Spirit. In fine, while, chap. vii. 
5, we read ὅτε μεν ἐν oaexr, we read, chap. vill. 9, Ὑμεῦς οὐχ ἐστὲ ἐν 
σαρκί. Many of these points, along with the connection, have been 
admirably developed by Turretin. Accordingly, the mere consider- 
ation of the substance and connection of the two chapters, were there 
nothing else, furnishes a definite result. Besides this, however, the 
dignity and the spirit of Christianity would forbid us to suppose that 
all it can accomplish is to waken a sense of the inward discord, with- 
out being able to do it away. ‘That sense many teachers of tlie 
ancient world knew how to awaken, although certainly not so tho- 
roughly as Christianity; but actually to secure the ascendancy for 
the principle, which ought to be predominant in man, was what no 
philosophy could effect. Ad. Clarke: ‘‘ This opinion has most piti- 


CIIAPTER VII. V. ἢ. 211 


fully and shamefully not only lowered the standard of Christianity, 
but destroyed its influence, and disgraced its character.”’ 

Let us now survey the history of the exposition of this section. 
The more ancient teachers of the church had unanimously explained 
it of the man who has not as yet become a Christian, nor is upheld 
in his struggle by the spirit of Christ. So Origen, ‘Tertullian,Chry- 
sostom and Theodoret. At an earlier period, Augustine also fol- 
lowed this view. (Prop. 41 in Ep. ad Rom., Confes. 1. vii. ὁ. 21; 
1. viii. c. 5; Ad Simpl. 1. i.) In the dispute with the Pelagians, how- 
ever, the two declarations, verse 17 and verse 22, raised his scruples. 
These, he thought, could not be put into the mouth of a man prior to 
regeneration, for then they would assign him too lofty a degree of 
personal goodness, (Aug. Cont. duas Epp. Pelag. 1.1. 6.12, Re- 
tract. 1.1. 6. 23; |.ii.c. 1.) In determining the question, all depends 
upon the conception we form of regeneration. Under that word, the 
fathers frequently comprise two different moral states; one, the state 
of inward dissension, in which the person has before his mind’s eye 
his own and the divine will, and struggles which of the two he ought 
to follow; the other, the state of living xazd πνεῦμα, in which the in- 
clinations and dispositions of man are in unison with the divine will, 
and love prompts him spontaneously to obey it. By a person rege- 
nerated, they understood generally, One who has at heart the fulfil- 
ment of the will of God. [5 regeneration conceived in this compre- 
hensive sense, then is the wnregenerate, one without law, one in 
whom no sense at all of inward discord has as yet been called forth. 
It was just of such reckless sinners, and, ideed, more particularly of 
Jews, who entertained more or /ess the persuasion of the bindingness 
of the law, that the fathers of the church understood these declara- 
tions of Paul. Now certainly, in declaring himself for the contrary, 
Augustine had sufficient ground; for in persons of this description 
no such lively discord as the Apostle here paints is discoverable. 
Calvin justly observes: Homo sue nature relictus, totus sine repug- 
nantia in cupiditates fertur. Quanquam enim impii stimulis con- 
scientie lanciuntur, non possis tamen inde colligere aut malum ab 
illis odio haberi, aut amari bonum. If, then, we call the person here 
described an unregenerate man, we understand by the name, a legal- 
ist; one who is seriously concerned about his sanctification, zealously 
strives after purity of heart, and who falls short of the mark, only 
because he does not set out from that-love which first loved him, but 
thinks by his own, to deserve the love of God, because the redemp- 
tion of Christ is not the fountain from which his holiness emanates 
free and lively as a stream. For just as art, with its toilsome and 
piecemeal labours, stands related to nature, with her free and whole- 
sale creations, so also is the law, as a school-master of holiness, re- 
lated to free grace as an affectionate mother. Now, although on this 
ground we certainly cannot, according to the gospel, regard such a 
legal state of concern, as amounting to regeneration, it still is never- 
theless a work of the spirit of God, so that the θέλω τὸ dyaSdv and 


212 CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 


the συνήδομαν τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ vods μόν, are unquestionably to be regarded 
as a divine operation (gratia preveniens. ) , 

Among latter expositors, by far the greater number acquiesced 
entirely either with Augustine or with the Greek fathers. ‘The for- 
mer was followed by Anselm, Thom. Aquinas, Corn. a Lapide and 
many others; the latter by Erasmus, Faustus Socinus (who wrote a 
very complete treatise, De loco in Ep. ad Rom. e. vii. disp. ed. 2. 
Racov. 1612. Defensio disputationis illius, Rac. 1618), by Raphe- 
lius, Arminius, Episcopius in a letter to Arminius, but of no very 
great weight, Epp. Ecclesiastice, Amst. 1684, Ep. 131, p. 228, by 
Limborch, Turretin, Clericus, Heumann and many more. ᾿ 

A different view, however, gained ground among those Protestants, 
who had apprehended more deeply the nature of the Christian doe- 
trine as unfolded by Paul. ‘They discriminated distinctly betwixt 
the lawless, the legal, and the spiritual or regenerate state. One 
class, to which Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Spener, Buddeus and 
many others belong, supposed that chapters vil. and viii., taken to- 
gether, present us with a description of the regenerate man; so as 
that chapter vil. delineates one aspect of his inward life, in virtue of 
which he does not as yet belong to Christ, while chap. viii. especially 
delineates the other side of evangelical consolation, which lies in the 
certainty of the objective redemption. A second class, however, to 
which Bucer, Schomer, A; H. Franke, Gottfr. Arnold, Bengel and 
others (Spener also in his Theol. Bedenk, Th. i. sect. 23.) belong, 
separate between the vii. and viii. chapters, as descriptive of two dif- 
ferent periods, the former the condition of the legalist, who is indeed 
in earnest in the business, but does not found his sanetification upon 
grace, and who consequently is unable to triumph over sin; the lat- 
ter, the state of the justified man, who seeks to kindle his own love 
at the love of God. ‘To this explanation we likewise fully assent, 
appealing in proof of it to the explication given above of the connec- 
tion. With respect to the two opposite views, those who suppose a 
person totally without law to be meant, lay a stress upon two points. 
The expressions, say they, in verses 15 and 22, θέλω, μισῶ; συνήδομαυ 
do not necessarily denote an actual inclination of the heart to that 
which is good, they may designate merely the approval of the un- 
derstanding. (See the exposition of these verses.) In like manner, 
according to the phraseology of Paul, νοὺς and ἔσω ἄνθφωπος do not 
stand directly for πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. On that supposition it might be 
remarked, that Paul contemplates the state of the lawless man from 
the state in which he himself stands, and which has been matured 
into self-consciousness, and transfers into it his present feelings. In 
point of fact, personal feelings may have a share in the exclamation 
of Paul at verse 24. It is impossible to think, however, that the 
Apostle, merely from his after sensations, describes a strife as taking 
place where it does not actually exist, and yet, following the exegeti- 
cal feeling, one is inclined both to suppose in general, that here such 
a strife is described, and also to regard θέλω, wrod, συνήδομαν as de- 


CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 213 


noting it. Generally, however, the condition of a person without 
law is delineated in the 9th verse, and, in fact, how different is it as 
there described from the condition of the legalist! The first class we 
mentioned of evangelical expositors, give the sense and connection of 
the section as follows: Up to verse 14, Paul speaks in the preterite 
tense, and hence describes the early contention of the legalist with 
the law, in which (verse 11) he is overthrown. Onward from verse 
14, he desires still more fundamentally to show the divinity of the 
law, and hence represents it in conflict with the man regenerate, on 
which account we have then the present. ‘True that even in the case 
of the latter, sin has the ascendancy, still it no longer meets with the 
inward consent. ‘There is a war waged, but along with that, there 
is the inward peace, such as is described viii. 1. ‘This view of Au- 
gustine’s is also recommended by a great truth which should not be 
overlooked, viz. that somewhat of the legal state ever manifests itself 
anew in the redeemed, and times without number occur in life, in 
which he can apply himself to what Paul here says. (And hence it 
is with truth that Beza observes: Nam certe ita est, ef qui hoc non 
novit, nondum seipsum novit. Compare Spener, Theol. Bed. B. i. 
s. 167, where he makes similar remarks in defence of the view of 
Augustine. Arndt has some peculiarly excellent expressions to the 
same effect. Vom wahren Christenthum, B. i. c. 16.) Hence it is 
that Bugenhagen observes: Quantum in nobis peccati et veteris Ada, 
tantum adhue habet imperii Jex, which may thus be understood: As 
long as the love of sin remains alive within us, so long will this in- 
veterate discord likewise be manifested. It must, however, be ob- 
served, in opposition, that the love of sin is gradually extinguished 
in the Christian, in respect, first, of sins of a gross, and afterwards 
of those of a more refined description; so that thus, as Augustine 
early expresses himself, the Christian is then no more sub lege but 
cum lege. Moreover, even though the love of sin do stir up within 
him the discord which is here portrayed, the Christian need not 
permit himself to be overcome in the struggle. He has the objective 
announcement of his redemption, and so when by a believing direc- 
tion of the mind, he acquiesces therein, the power of the χάρις is re- 
alized subjectively in his faith. It is true, that is not always the 
case; frequently does the σάρξ triumph over the πνεῦμα. At any 
rate, however, these occasions are to be considered abnormal in the 
Christian life, as they do not occur in it in so far as it is, but only in 
so far as it has not yet become, Christian. ‘They must hence be 
there only as something evanescent. 

Respecting the subdivision, again, which these interpreters make 
at verse 14, there is no ground for it at all, inasmuch as what follows, 
from that verse, and onwards, with respect to the contest with the 
law, is just what was already said in the previous context; nor con- 
sidering the lively manner of describing which St. Paul loves, is the 
circumstance that thence forward verbs present are used, by any 
means extraordinary. 


214 CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 


Having thus answered the important question, whether in this sec- 
tion the legalist or the justified man is spoken of, we have now still 
to inquire whether Paul throughout the whole of it, where he speaks 
in the first person, speaks of himself and his own circumstances, or 
whether he transfers to himself the circumstances of others. Augus- 
tine is of the former opinion, and many go along with him. On that 
supposition, however, it is still-more incredible that the Apostle, in 
the words of the chapter, should paint that state of his as lasting. 
Supposing it again only momentarily such as he describes it, he had 
no occasion, as we have remarked, to represent these transient excep- 
tional states of inward life as peculiarly Christian, Even Origen 
felt that such an acknowledgment, when considered as applicable to 
the present, did not become St. Paul: Et extera in quibus confitetur 
a lege, que in membris suis est, et repugnat legi mentis sue, capti- 
vum duci se lege peccati, quomodo Apostolice convenient dignitati 
et Paulo precipue, in quo Christus et vivit et loguitur. Hence even 
in the ancient church, among Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Je- 
rome and Pelagius, the opinion was more general, that Paul transfers 
to himself the state of others. Cases of the same kind, called in his 
own language μετασχηματισμός, 1 Cor. iv. 6, are frequently to be met 
with in St. Paul’s writings, 1 Cor. vi. 12; x. 23,29, 30; xiii. 11, 12; 
Gal. ii. 18. Hence likewise we find by turns, chap. vil. 14, and 
viii. 1, the plural used, which goes through the whole of the viii. 
chapter. With regard to the person whose state he takes to himself, 
Chrysostom, Grotius, Clericus, and indeed most others, look upon 
the Jews before and under the law as intended; Erasmus maintains 
a contraposition of the Gentile without, and the Jew under the law. 
‘Theodoret, at verses 9 and 10, imagines that there is no less than 
an assumption of the person of Adam. But Pelagius and Photius, 
even in their day, hit upon the truth, the one supposing generally a 
transference of the circumstances of a person about to be, and of a 
person that already is, converted, 2. e. he thinks that state of man to 
be meant, in which the individual has not yet been brought to a 
knowledge of the obligation of the law, and that wherein the law 
presents itself to him as obligatory. Phot. τοῦτο οὐχ εἰς ἑαυτὸν ὃ 
Παῦλος stenxev, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οἰχειούμενος φύσεως. 
Ambrose: Sub sua persona quasi generalem causam agit. It cer- 
tainly cannot well be denied, as the occasional substitution of the 
plural shows, that the Apostle depicts generally the relation of the 
Jaw, and afterwards that of grace to man, and in so far makes use of 
the μετασχηματισμόςς. But then, Paul had himself passed through 
the states which he describes; he had himself experienced in his 
own person the insufficiency of a religious law, imposing mere out- 
ward commands and obligations. And hence what more natural 
than that he should at the same time speak on the subject from per- 


* Paul does not say this of himself, but appropriating the person of human 
nature. 


CHAPTER VII. ν. 7, 8. 215 


sonal experience, in such a way as that it might be hard to sever 
what is μετασχηματισμός and what delineation of his own feelings. 
We require always to keep in view, that Paul compresses individual 
experiences into general propositions and results. ‘That what he 
says does emanate from his own inward life and experience, is par- 
ticularly apparent from verse 25. 

The Apostle accordingly designs,’in the first place, to show that 
the law, in virtue of its own inward nature, does not produce the 
ἁμαρτία. He means to declare what use it answers. Its great use 
is, that it teaches us to recognize sin as sin. C&cumenius: Ὥστε οὐ 
τοῦ ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ διαγινώσκειν THY ἁμαξτίαν ὁ νόμος αἴτιος. Pelagius: 
Excusationem ignorantie abstulit, gravius enim facit quam ante pec- 
care. 

To this he appends a confirmation. Τὴν τε yae ἐπιθυμίαν, &c. We 
may co-ordinate this with the preceding clause, and regard the ἐπιθυ- 
μία aS a particular auaeria, “1 myself, 6. g. had not known sin, ex- 
cept,” &c. The proposition, however, becomes far weightier, when 
by ἐπιθυμία, we understand the inward sinful propensity. ‘I knew 
not sin in general, because I had not been made attentive to its in- 
ward root. After ἐπιθυμήσεις, we have to supply, “and so on,”’ Ex. 
xx. 14; Deut. v. 18. 

V.8. In verse 7th, the law was vindicated. Now follows, That 
sin only abuses it. ‘The Apostle carries to its height the doctrine of 
the opposition betwixt the law and inclination. His meaning is, 
**So little did the commandment help, that it rather.....’’ Perti- 
nently Erasmus: Cum ante legem proditam quedam peccata nesci- 
rem, quedam ita scirem ut mihi tamen licere putarem, quod vetita 
non essent, levius ac languidius sollicitabatur animus ad peccandum, 
ut frigidius amamus ea, quibus ubi, libeat, potiri fas est. Czaterum 
legis judicio, proditis tot peccati formis universa cupiditatum cohors 
irritata prohibitione ccepit acrius ad peccandum sollicitare. When 
by means of a prohibition, the idea is brought before the mind of a 
man, that certain gratifications are sinful, these gratifications do, in 
that way, present themselves more distinctly to him in the form of a 
good, so that he more frequently thinks of them. Man is disposed 
to regard as a good, whatever is prohibited, merely because it is pro- 
hibited. Frequent thinking of an object, and that in the light of 
something good, is apter to kindle the desire. ‘This experimental 
truth was expressed even by the Heathen. In Livy, l. xxxiv. ὃ. 4. 
Cato says: Nolite eodem loco existimare, Quirites, futuram rem, quo 
fuit, antequam lex de hoc ferretur. Et hominem improbum non ac- 
cusari, tutius est quam absolvi, et luxuria non mota tolerabilior esset, 
quam erit nunc, ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irritata deinde emissa. 
Seneca, De clementia, |. 1. 6. 23: Parricide cum lege ceeperunt. Hor. 
Carm. |. i. Od. 3: Audax omnia perpeti Gens humana ruit per veti- 
tum nefas. Hence Ovid, Amor. 1. iii. et iv: Nitimur in vetitum 
semper cupimusque vetata. And so likewise as it is said in Scripture: 
Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant, Prov. 


216 CHAPTER VII. Vv. 8, 9. 


my AY “Auaerca denotes here the sinful bias of the will; '᾽Ἐπι- 
δυμία, its modification when manifested; ’Evvoay is the particular 
commandment. 

᾿Αφορμὴν λαμβάνειν, πρόφασιν λαμβάνειν, is likewise quite common 
among classical authors. In the New Testament dpoguy occurs in 
malam partem, 1 Tim. v. 14. Gal. v. 13. 

χωρὶς γὰξ νόμον κτλ. Usteri, 5. 25. ** Before a νόμος is either given 
to man from without, or developes itself within him, sinfulness exists 
indeed, as a disposition, but it is dead, ὁ, 6. it has not, as yet, become 
an object of consciousness, inasmuch as no contest betwixt his sin- 
fulness and a command could, as yet, take place within him.” Cal- 
vin: Perinde est ac si diceret, sepultam esse sine lege peccati noti- 
tiam. Chrysostom: οὐχ οὕτω γνώξιμός ἐστι. Pelagius: Impune 
committitur, nam male dicente infante parentibus, videtur esse pecca- 
tum non tamen vivum sed mortuum. Augustine: Non quia est, sed 
quia latet. In such circumstances there exists also less temptation 
to sin, as that takes its rise most effectually, when sin is brought to 
our knowledge under the form of the prohibition. Accordingly, 
vexeos denotes, likewise, want of operativeness. So, Jas. ii. 17, 26, 
it is applied to faith. So, likewise, ‘Heb. ix. 14, those works are 
termed teya vexea, which are destitute of inward spirit, which have 
not emanated from a vital moral disposition. Compare also, 1 Cor. 
xv. 56: Ἢ δύνᾳμις τῆς auaertias, ὃ νομός. The meaning accordingly 
is, “ Without the law we are not sensible of sin as such, and hence, 
come less under its tempting power.” 

V.9. From this to verse 11, we have but a more detailed repeti- 
tion of verses 7th and 8th. The δέ after ἐγώ must not lead us astray. 
It forms, what we have already had examples of, a formal antithesis 
betwixt vexea and ἔζων, which the Apostle prosecutes still farther in 
the following ἀνέζησεν and ἀπέθανεν; On which account, transferring 
the yweis yae νόμον from the foregoing verse, Bengel not amiss trans- 
lates: Nam absque lege peccatum quidem erat mortuum, ego vero 
vivus eram absque lege quondam, precepti autem illius adventu, pec- 
catum quidem revixit ego vero mortuus sum. We may perceive 
even from this contraposition, that ἔζων here stands in an emphatic 
sense. Beza: vivus eram, nempe quod non ita turbaretur ejus con- 
scientia, quum morbum suum ignoraret maxima ex parte. ‘The sin- 
ner in whom the moral discord has not as yet been stirred up, often 
enjoys an apparent freshness and freedom of life. So Augustine, in 
his day. In like manner Philo, Quod det pot. Insid. p. 164, B: 6 
δὲ φαῦλος ζὼν τὸν ἐν κακίῳ βίον, τέθνηκε τὸν evdatmova.* Comp. Rev. iii. 
1. The ἀπέθανον thus signifies in more extensive sense, ‘‘ lost my 
proper being, became miserable (viz. by means of the strife within 
which admits no tranquillity of life.) Compare Baruch iv. 1: αὐτὴ 
ἡ βίβλος τῶν πδοσταγμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ xaL ὁ νόμος: πάντες οἱ xEaTOUYTES 
αὐτὴν, εἰς ζωὴν" οὐ δὲ χαταλείποντες αὐτὴν ἀποθανοῦνταυ. Compare 


* The wicked man who lives an evil life is dead, as regards a happy one. 


CHAPTER VII. Vv. 9. 217 


what was said upon θάνατος and ἀποθνήσκειν at chap. v. 12. Others, 
of whom are Chrysostom and Cocceius, translate became wholly 
sinful. But this does not suit with the context, as also appears from 
the εἰς ϑάνατον which follows in the 10th verse. 

ἀνέζησεν, it revived; having in the period when there was no law, 
fallen asleep. Here also it is better to understand ζῇν emphatically. 
lt awakens and acquires its true force. Accordingly we shall 
adopt the meaning of this verse, as stated by Cameronius, who thus 
correctly expounds: (Cameron. in Crit. Sacr. ad Rom. viii. 15:) 
Homo naturaliter in peccato suo jacet consopitus, ignarus miserie 
sux, priusquam a Deo in Legis notitia illuminetur. Ad illumina- 
tionis illius primum usque momentum putat vivere, ἢ. 6. quiete pa- 
cateque vitam agere, verum ubi a lege pulsatur ejus conscientia, 
statim moritur ἢ. 6. mire exagitatur atque animo percellitur, sive 
applicet se bono (quod nunquam appetivisset nisi per mandatum id 
jussus esset proptereaque non nisi invitus illi se applicat), sive a 
malo sibi temperet (quod illaa natura mire allubescit), id non nisi 
egre et reluctanti animo prestat, sive oculos conjiciat in maledic- 
tionem, quam contumacibus lex interminatur, quamque scit se effu- 
gere non posse, nisi Deus aliqua ratione, quam ipse non vidit, suc- 
currat, id non sine horrore potest animo concipere. Supposing, now, 
that Paul here directly describes his own personal experience, we 
may ask (as has been done by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Arndt) 
on what periods of his life may we conceive him to have thought in 
this description of the time when the νόμος has not as yet awakened. 
In respect of mankind in general, however, we may also inquire 
when and where the circumstances here delineated occur. With re- 
ference to what we asserted above, of the Apostle’s comprising 
manifold isolated experiences in general results, we might reply, that 
here too the Apostle does not depict experiences which occur in one 
single period of life, but merely collects into the picture of the man 
without law, certain circumstances which are manifested more or 
less in different periods, and upon different stages of development. 
In point of fact, a state of absolute lawlessness, in which man en- 
counters nothing obligatory whatsoever, or whencesoever, could not 
at all occur. Still the want of consciousness of a law is met with, 
chiefly upon the lowest stages of social life, (although it is just there 
that the mighty force of conscience, and hence at least of the inward 
νόμος, frequently manifests itself); moreover, among men of great 
levity, or of very obtuse perceptions, who not unfrequently possess 
a certain instinctive good-heartedness, which deceives both them- 
selves and others with respect to their character; finally, among such 
as, from youth up, have been deprived of all religious and moral dis- 
cipline. With the Apostle, indeed, none of these was the case. 
According to what, at Phil. iii. 6, and elsewhere, he says of himself, 
one might believe that he had always manifested a sincere zeal and 
fidelity towards his religious law, as may well be concluded also 
from his training under Gamaliel, known to us (from the Talmud 

28 


218 CHAPTER Vil. V. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13._ 


and other sources) as an estimable and pious man. If verse 24 be 
the utterance of the Apostle’s own vivid experience, at no period of 
his life can he have belonged to those Pharisees who were satisfied 
with a mere outward and superficial fulfilment of the law. - And thus 
one would have to suppose, that when he delineates the state of 
being without law, it is merely isolated circumstances and facts de- 
rived likewise from his own experience that float before his mind. 
He might, in an especial manner, have thought of his youth before 
his entrance into the school of Gamaliel. Augustine and Calvin are 
inclined to believe that it is Paul’s life as a Pharisee, which is 
meant, when his attention had not as yet been called to an inward 
obedience to the law. 

V. 10. The law of God holds out to those who obey it life, i. e. 
blessedness, Lev. xviii. 5. Amos v. 4. Deut. ν. 16,32,33. Comp. 
Gal. ili. 12. Chrysostom: οὐχ εἶπε, γέγονέ Sdvatos, ἀλλ᾽ eveéOn, τὸ 
χαυνὸν καὶ παράδοξον τῆς ἀτοπίας, οὕτως Eeunvevar.* 

V. 11. Ἐξηπάτησε. Most unnatural is the explanation of Calvin 
and others, as if this were to be understood to mean solely, knowing 
that we have been deceived. Calvin: Verbum ἐξαπατᾷν non de re 
ipsa, sed de notitia exponi debet, quia scilicet ex lege palam, fit, 
quantum a recto cursu discesserimus. It is better with most ex- 
positors to understand: It seduced, enticed me to sin, or it insidiously 
deprived me of the advantage attainable by a right use of the law. 

ἀπέκτεινεν. ‘This word we must explain from the ἀπέϑανον and 
Sdvaros. It means: made me totally wretched. Sohar, Genes. fol. 
97, col. 384. R. Eheser dixit: Quicunque operam dat legi nomine 
ipsius, (7. e. ea intentione ut eam exsequatur) ille non occiditur a 
concupiscentia prava. In Bechai, (Vitr. Observ. ‘I. II. p. 599,) we 
read, R. Simeon Ben Lakisch says: 1nn9 wpam roy ay 525 yaann 
pix ow ity", “The sinful nature of man every day rises up against 
and seeks to slay him.’’ Hence also among the Rabbins, the innate 
corruption of human nature is called the Death Angel. There are 
many who must be reduced to this extreme of inward wretchedness, 
before they feel any desire after salvation. Hence Bengel: Hic ter- 
minus Giconomiz peccati in confinio gratie. 

V. 12. Conclusion drawn from the nature of the contest described. 
Νόμος answers to MND, the sum of the law of Gods ἐντοχή to pn, the 
particular precept. 'Theodoret: ‘Aytav neoonyogevoe, ὡς τὸ δέον δυ- 
δάξασαν' δικαίων δέ; ὡς ὀφξθὼς rors παξαβάταις τὴν ψῆφον ἐξενεγχοῦσαν. 
ἀγαθὴν δέ, ὡς ζωὴν τοῖς φυλάττουσιν εὐτρεπίζουσαν.ἷ Comp. 1 Tim. 
ii8e 

V. 13. ᾿Αλλὰ ἡ ἁμαφτιά,. Erasmus rightly renders the ἀλλά by 


* He does not say became, but was found, thereby explaining the new and 
unlooked for absurdity. 

+ He pronounces it holy, as having inculcated what is proper; just as hav- 
ing rightfully passed sentence upon transgressors, and good as having pro- 
vided life for those who keep it. 


- 


CHAPTER VII. ν. 13, 14. 219 


imo; for after the duaer’a we require to supply ἐμοὶ γέγονε Savaros. 
Ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαξτία «ta. Here the construction gives rise to some dif- 
ficulty. First, it is a question, whether the second ἕνα should be 
co-ordinated with, or subordinated to the first. In the latter case, it 
would be the least objectionable, although still a harsh way, with the 
Vulgate, Erasmus and Heumann, to supply ἣν to χατεφγαζομένην and 
understand φανῇ, to become evident: Ut appareat peccatum per bo- 
num mihi operatum esse mortem, ut fiat, ὅσο, Still more unnaturally 
Elsner, whom De Wette follows, and who takes φανῇ with the par- 
ticiple, as a pleonasm, for χκατεφγάζηται, a construction of which we 
certainly have examples in profane authors. Highly preferable is 
the co-ordination of the second to the first clause. ‘The participle 
κατεῤγαζομένῃ is then explicative: Utpote quod mihi efliciat mortem, 
and the clause with the second ἕνα is a more profound exhibition of 
the first. Beza: Ut appareret esse peccatum mihi per id quod bo- 
num est efficiens mortem, i. 6. ut peccatum fieret admodum peccans 
per illud preceptum. In this way also it is not necessary to sup- 
pose that γένηται is epanalepsis of φανῇ. Nor is that a bad connection 
which Michaelis adopts, viz. to regard ἕνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία, as a paren- 
thetical clause, and immediately after duaez/a to supply γέγονε Savaros, 
“No. But sin, that it might truly appear as such, having procured 
death for me by the commandment, in order that sin by means of the 
commandment might strongly appear in her black and sinful aspect.” 

Kas’ ὑπερβολήν, instead of ὑπεφβαλλόντως frequently used by Paul. 
1 Cor. xii. 81. 2 Cor. i. 8; iv. 17. ‘The meaning of the clause is 
pertinently given by Calvin: Valde enim pestiferam rem esse oportet, 
que efficiat ut quod alioqui salubre est natura, noxam afferat. Sensus 
est; oportuisse detegi per Jegem peccati atrocitatem, quia nisi pecca- 
tum immani quodam vel enormi excessu prorumperet, non agnosce- 
retur peccatum. Excessus hic eo se violentius profundit, dum vitam 
convertit in mortem. It is the royal privilege of good, that from all 
evil it knows how to educe good, as it is the curse of evil that it per- 
verts to evil all that is good. 

V. 14. The majority of the expositors of Augustine’s school, sup- 
pose that from this point forth, the special reference to a person re- 
deemed takes place. (Others too make no break at all from ver. 7.) 
The Apostle, they say, means now to demonstrate more particularly 
the divinity of the law, by setting forth the opposition into which it 
comes, even with the man redeemed. ‘This exposition can only 
meet with approval, when we rend away the section from its con- 
nection. If, however, we keep in view, first, the introduction of the 
chapter, which represents the Christian as wholly delivered from the 
condemnation of the law, and 2dly, the thesis ver. 5, where the 
ascendancy of sin in man, is placed within the term of the legal 
state, and then ver. 6, which, on the other hand, places the spiritual 
walk, in the period of the redemption, if we consider, in fine, how 
chap. vill. 1, again resumes this connection, and proclaims the 
spiritual walk of the redeemed and freedom from the law, it is mani- 


230 CHAPTER VII. V. 14. 


fest that Paul could have had no other object in painting the struggle 
he here describes, than to show the nature of the legal state. For 
it was solely with this view, that he had undertaken even to demon- 
strate the holiness of the law. It must be added, that upon examining 
the following section, nothing whatever appears which differs in sub- 
stance from the preceding verse. What we find is rather just a spe- 
cific detail of what in that verse is laid down generally, viz. That 
by the knowledge of the divine law, the inward variance is not di- 
minished, but only exasperated. Neither can it afford any ground 
at all for here seeking another subject, that henceforward we have 
only present tenses. Bengel: Utitur Paulus ante versum 14 verbis 
preteriti temporis; tum expeditioris sermonis causa, presentis, in 
preteritum resolvendis, perinde ut alibi casus, modos, &e. facilitatis 
gratia permutare solet; et v. gr. mox, chap. vill. 2, 4, a numero sin- 
gulari ad pluralem, ibidem, ver. 9, a prima persona ad secundam 
transit. Eoque commodius a preterito tempore ad presens flectitur 
oratio, quod status illius legalis indolem tum demum vere intelligat, 
postquam sub gratiam venerit, et ex presenti Jiquidius possit judicare 
de preterito. Denique unus ille idemque status processusque varios 
habet gradus, vel magis preterito vel minus preterito tempore expri- 
mendos, et sensim suspirat, connititur, enititur ad libertatem; inde 
paulatim serenior fit oratio Apostoli. ‘The yae shows that there fol- 
lows a filling up of the previous subject; and thus would we give the 
tenor of the explication: ‘‘ Such must be the case, for it cannot be 
denied that there subsists an incurable discrepancy betwixt God’s 
law and our inclinations.”’ 

oldauev. Semler and Koppe insist that seeing ἐγώ is used in all 
the other passages, oda μέν should be read. But, on the one hand, 
the reason is not sufficient, and on the other, Paul is wont to deliver 
just such maxims of general experience as this in the plural number. 
C. ii. 2. 

Here, where πνευματικός and σαρκικός are set in opposition, it is 
necessary to develope generally the Bible meaning of πνεύμα and 
σάρξ, as all the sequel rests upon this antithesis. In the Old Testa- 
ment, man is frequently called wa, which then involves the adjunct 
idea of weakness and frailty. We find, in general, that in the mind 
of the Hebrew, the ἀ αν τ was attached to the notion of man. This 
is involved even in Gen. iii. 19, with which Eceles. iii. 20, and Ee- 
clesiasticus xvii. 1, and xxxiil. 10 are to be compared. It is also 
shown by the etymology of wx. In this signification Wa more 
particularly occurs, Gen. vi. 8. Ps. Ixxviii. 39; Ivi. 4. Jer. xvii. 
5. Is. xl. 6. The contrast with ny we find expressly drawn, Is. 
ΧΧΧΙ. 3: WI ὉΠ ΟἹΟῚ Deed DAN ΟΠ δ. ~The New Testament, 
takes up this usus loquendi of the Old, and in it the antithesis of odeg 
and πνεύμα everywhere recurs. Σάρφξ here denotes, ** human nature, 
as weak and impotent for good,” in contrast with the new principle 
of life, which, through fellowship of men with Christ, is implanted | 
therein. ‘Theodoret: Σαῤκιχὸν χαλεῖγ τὸν μηδέπω τῆς σιίνευματικῆς 


CHAPTER VII. v. 14. 221 


ἐπικονξίας tervynxdra.* Hence we find, 1 Cor. ili. 3, caextxds εἶναι» 
made the same with κατὰ drGewnoy πεξφιπατεῦν, t. 6. “like man as 
he commonly is.”” At 2 Cor, i. 12, the copia σαξκχική is opposed to 
the εἰλικδίνεια τοῦ Θεοῦ, accordingly ‘the wisdom attained by the 
ordinary powers of man,”’ to that imparted by peculiar divine influ- 
ence. 2 Cor. i. 17. xara odexa βουλεύειν Means, without higher con- 
siderations. 2 Cor. x. 8. ἐν oaext γὰρ περιπατοῦντες» οὐ κατὰ σάρκα 
στρατευόμεθα, Although we sojourn in feeble human nature, still is 
our warfare of such a sort, as is not carried on merely with 
powers borrowed from this weak nature,’’ and so on. Here too, i 
particular, are to be placed, from among the sayings of Christ hime 
self, such as Matt. xxvi. 41, “ The higher divine element within’) 
you is willing, but human nature is too weak.’ Matt. xvi. 17, 
“That has not emanated from weak human nature, but from an in- 
fluence from on high.” John iii. 6, ‘* Man as such, is destitute of ὦ 
divine life, and can only acquire it by a generation of a higher kind.” * 
So also do ecclesiastical writers oppose to each other, τὸ ἀνθφώπινον 
and τὸ πνευματικόν; xa’ ἀνθρώπους ony and χατὰ TOV Χριστόν. See 
Ignat. ep. 1, ad Eph. 6. 5, ad Phil. c. 7, ad Trall. &c. 

One might perhaps, however, conceive the antithesis in a different 
way from what is here done, understanding by cae§ the σῶμα, the 
whole organs of sensation; and—as the contrast would then require 
—by πνεῦμα, the rors, that which connects us with God, which exists 
even in the natural man, but which in the Christian bears rule, the 
religious and moral sense, the intellect. So even in ancient times, 
the Alexandrine school, and among moderns, the majority of theo- 
logians, Erasmus, Michaelis, Stolz and many others. Now, doubt- 
Jess, the corporeal system is the organ through which many sins are 
executed, and doubtless, also, it too often prevails over the spiritual 
interests to the prejudice of the individual. ‘Still we must take into 
consideration, that per se that system cannot be evil; moreover that 
it does not necessarily occasion inordinate desires, some discord in 
the spiritual part always requiring to precede, before such a prepon- 
derance of the bodily appetites can take place. (Not the oaeé but¢ 
the φροόνημα τῆς caexds is evil.) Hence the Apostle points deeper to Ὁ 
the source of good and evil, when he derives the former from a ζῆν) 
τῷ Θεῷ, and consequently the latter, from the éavrw env, 2 Cor. ν. 15. 
Rom. xiv. 7. Τὸ the same more deeply seated source we are also 
conducted, when, in the manner shown, we trace historically the use 
of the word σάρξ. ‘There are, moreover, domains of transgression, 
which are nowise dependent upon the corporeal organization of man, 
as want of affection, hatred, envy, pride. ‘These, however, are de- 
signated by the Apostle, ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, Gal. v. 19—22. Nay 
even to the Theosophists, who practised ascetical severities (Col. ii. 
22, 23,) and occupied themselves solely with speculations upon the 
world of spirits, the Apostle ascribes a vows τῆς σαρκός. Comp. like- 


* He calls that man carnal who has not as yet obtained spiritual aid. 


4 


ἔ 
} 


222 CHAPTER VII. V. 14. 


wise Eph. ii. 3. 1 Cor. iii. 8, Rom. viii. 1,5—9. In passages 
of this sort, a natural exegesis is only to be obtained, when we un- 
derstand by πνεῦμα, not the human intellect, but the new Christian 
principle of life, and in compliance therewith, by oae, the human 
nature abandoned to itself, and being as sucha vexeov. Inthe present 
passage, we have not, it is true, the contrast of σάξξ and πνεῦμα, but as 
afterwards appears, of σάρξ and νοὺς OF ἔσω ἄνθξωπος. For this reason, 
however, we could not hold ourselves justified in concluding that 
πνεῦμα is everywhere the same as νοῦς» or that σάρξ is equivalent to 
σῶμα. For, as the connection shows, the Apostle is here speaking 
of the man, and only of him, who is as yet destitute of the πνεῦμα» 
and not until he reaches, c. viii. 4, 5, 6, does he make the transition 
to the man by whom it has been obtained. Accordingly he can do 
nothing else but contrast the νοῦς with the σάεξ. Comp., upon the 
signification of σάρξ, Augustine De civit. Dei, 1. xiv. c. 8. Buddei 
Dissert. de anima sede pece, orig. in Miscell. Sacris. Τὶ, ΠΙ,, and 
Knapp, Scripta Theolog. p. 220, sq. 

Let us now consider the πνευματιχὸς and the caexvxds in the con- 
trast into which they are here brought. ‘The law, both the moral 
law in the bosom of man, and the expressure of that in the Deca- 
logue, is, as Augustine profoundly expresses it, a revelation of the 
higher order of things founded in the being of God. (It is hence a 
᾿πνευματιχόν.) "To carry it into execution, we require, in respect of 
‘our inward man, to be incorporated into that order of things; we must, 
‘in like manner, as the law, become πνευματικοί. But without an in- 


} terest in the redemption, man cannot become πνευματικός: ‘The con- 


sequence accordingly is, an incurable discrepancy. Comp. the An- 
notations on ver. 6. Usteri, p. 23. ‘The law, if merely law or 
γεάμμα; dwells only in the understanding, is something objectively 
known. The subjective side of man, upon which his will also is 
based (whence Paul always denotes that by ἐγώ), has originally no 
concern with it. Inasmuch, however, as the law promulgates some- 
thing which ought to emanate from the will of man, the will is there- 
by provoked to oppose what is originally foreign to it, and thus the 
nature of the will, as fleshly and hostile to the Spirit, becomes mani- 
fest.” A similar saying is found in the book Reschith Chochma. 
Tony NWI KIX TAWA NO ΤΠ) MN 25:0 TANNA ID 439.“ The Tho- 
rah, on account of her spirzfuality, dwells only in the soul that is 
free from all dross.” 

In place of caextxds Codd. A C D E F G and many Greek fathers, 
read cdexwos. Now, inasmuch as, 1 Cor. iii. 1, and Heb. vii. 16, 
the best codices read caexwos, We must reasonably suppose that in 
common usage odaexwos, which has properly only the sensible mean- 
ing fleshly, bore aiso the metaphorical one, and that that is here the ’ 
proper reading. 

The Apostle describes the ἐγώ as the caexcvdv, because the velleitas 
in man, which, according to ver. 15 and 16, is found on the side of 
the law of God, is all too powerless, and because, as a consequence 


CHAPTER VII. v. 14, 15. 223 


of its impotence, the entire man appears in contradiction to the law. 
In the same way the Platonic formulas χξείττων xou ἥττων ἑαυτοῦ are 
also to be explained, in which the love of evil is regarded as the true 
self. Comp. de Rep. 1. IV. p. 347. 'T. VI. Bip. ‘The sublime 
thing in the nature of that moral law, which we bear about with us 
in our bosom, is just that it addresses us by, ‘Thou! and that, though 
all our desires tend the contrary way, we are yet compelled to ac- 
‘knowledge its supremacy. It is thence manifest, that by the medium 
of the conscience, a higher order of things is directly manifested in 
the lower, its creator in the creature, (Comp. Heidenreich, Ueber 
natiirl. Rel. Leipz. 1790, 5. 173.) On the other hand, however, we 
may also regard that which addresses to us the Z’how as the proper 
Me in man, inasmuch as this religious and moral sense must make 
the entire nature of man homogeneous wiih itself, and inasmuch as 
the idea of man is only then fulfilled, when his nature has been 
brought into harmony with this νόμος γεαπτὸς ἐν τῇ xaediq. In this 
respect, accordingly, the Apostle, in ver. 17, actually designates by 
the ἐγώ, the religious and moral sense, and, on the contrary, repre- 
sents the guaerda as an unlawful settler in human nature. 

πεπιραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαέτιαν. He who was vanquished in war, 
was sold asaslave. And hence the Apostle describes the man who 
has been overcome in the struggle with the ungodly impulses of his 
will, as given up for a slave tosin. ‘The expression was already 
common in Hebrew, and was applied to those who, as it were, stood 
under the despotism of the wicked one.  727An, 1 Kings xxi. 20, 
25. 2Kings xvii. 17. So also 1 Macc. i. 15: éxeadqoav tov ποιῆσαι 
zo πονηεόν. ‘The Rabbins too have the phrase 22) pon Ww 12. 
With them 72} signifies to be sold, or in general fo be delivered 
over. So Sanh. f. 97, col. 2, MMII on 301. Disciples of 
Christ are no more δοῦλου τῆς ἁμαδτίας, Rom. vi. 17. John viii. 36. 
Melancthon: Hee (summa corruptela nature nostra) necesse est 
tradi in ecclesia, ut cognoscamus e regione magnitudinem beneficil 
Christi. Grotius cuts the nerve of this profound saying of Paul, and 
makes the words insipid and empty by the notes: Alia est natura 
Legis, alia magne partis hominum et major pars Judzorum (!!) 
affectibus abripitur. 

V. 15. The Apostle again connects with yde, for the proposition 
is meant to prove the blindness of the oaeé of man. Hitherto he 
had contrasted himself, in respect of his whole being, with the divine 
law; now, however, he begins to describe a discord which exists 
within himself. In order to attain clearness of perception on this 
matter, we require to state, and psychologically define, the different 
subjects which occur in the Apostle’s explication. We set out with 
the fact that the Apostle still supposes an original element in man 
cognate with the Divine Being. (See i. 18.) This is the religious 
and moral sense (vows) which never can be totally eradicated in man, 
without his thereby ceasing to be man. He would, in that case, be 
a physical being. It always manifests itself at least in certain move- 


224 CHAPTER Vil. v. 15. 


ments of the conscience. Now, as kindred things attract, each the 
other, no sooner is the external νόμος proposed to man, than a certain 
attraction takes place within him towards it, a longing to fulfil it. 
There occurs, accordingly, an agreement of the inward with the out- 
ward law, (ver. 16,) and for that reason the Apostle does not nar- 
rowly distinguish whether it is of the inward or of the outward νόμος 
that he speaks. Now, to this inward godly element of his being, 
there stands opposed the inclination to wilfulness, ἢ. e. to sin. Look- 
ing to what man manifests himself actually to be, he might call this 
inclination his proper se/f, for the Divine element we spoke of does 
not exert its efficacy. And hence the Aposile also calls the oaeé, the 
ἐγώ of man, ver. 14, 18. On the other hand, however, even the in- 
dividual who sinks very low, never entirely loses the consciousness 
that that divine element constitutes his proper self, and that to it all 
the rest must become homogeneous, in fact, that it is the Divine seed 
in him, which is choked, indeed, but no more. Accordingly the 
Apostle represents the ἁμαξτία or oaeé as something foreign to man, 
and the godly element as his proper ἐγώ, ver. 17,20. Hence also 
does he call that element, the ἔσω dvOeazos, the true core of man, 
Now of what sort is the volition which he ascribes to this inward 
man? A sound and mght volition it cannot be, otherwise it would 
carry so strong an impulse with it, as would bring the effect to pass. 
It is accordingly only of a feeble kind. The scholastics distinguish be- 
twixt the voluntas completa and incompleta, and call the latter velleitas. 
Even of this velleitas,we may imagine to ourselves various degrees. We 
can suppose the θέλειν and σύμφημι and συνήδομαν More as an approval 
with the understanding, accompanied to be sure by some, but at the same 
time by a quite feeble, movement of the religious and moral sense. 
In this sense, as Thomas Aquinas observes, even the most aban- 
doned shows a certain willing, i. e. approval of what is good. So 
Chrysostom: οὐ ϑέλω, τουτέστιν οὐκ ἐπαινὼ. Of what sort such a vel- 
leitas is, Augustine shows from his own experience, Conf. 1. VIII. 
c. 8: Undique ostendenti vera te dicere, non erat omnino, quod re- 
sponderem veritate convictus, nisi tantum verba lenta et somnolenta: 
Modo, ecce modo, sine paululum! Sed modo et modo non habe- 
bant modum, et sine paululum in longum ibat. On the other hand, 
of that voluntas which is operated by Divine grace alone, and by it 
alone also reaches the mark, the same author says, (ibid. 1]. VIII. c. 8,): 
Non solum ire, verum etiam pervenire illuc, nihil erat aliud, quam 
velle ire, sed velle fortiter et integre, non semisauciam hac atque hac 
versare et jactare voluntatem, hac parte assurgentem cum alia parte 
cadente luctantem. (Compare the remarkable avowals on this sub- 
ject in Petrarch’s Autobiography. G. Miiller’s Selbstbekentnisse 
merkwurd. Manner, Winterthur, 1791, B. I. 5. 44.) ‘The connec- : 
tion, however, and likewise the words severally considered, as for 
instance συνήδομαιν Make it likelier, that here under the Séaew some- 
thing more than assent by the understanding is meant. Were the 
Apostle describing a person in whose breast no sense of moral dis- 


CHAPTER Vil. v. 15. 225 


cord is in any degree awakened, then, doubtless, we should have to 
understand by the Séxew only a cold assent. But he speaks of one 
in whom sin has engaged in warfare with the law, and vividly 
does he paint the inward anguish of such a person, (ver. 24.) It is 
hence scarcely possible to avoid understanding by the Séaew, a higher 
degree of willing, a species of longing. Should any, from a doc- 
trinal point of view, object that before regeneration we cannot pro- 
perly suppose such a feeling in man, seeing that it can only be the 
fruit of the χάρις, we might reply, that the Apostle, chap. vill. 15, 
also speaks of a πνεῦμα Sovaécas, among legal Jews, and that he thus, 
in like manner, derives their zeal for the law, from a divine influence, 
which might well be designated as the gratia preveniens. 

οὐ γινώσκω. Augustine, even in his day, and following him, Beza,Gro- 
tius and others, gave this a sense which also belongs to the Hebrew 
yy, to approve. Hos. viii. 4. Compare the Annot. of Elsner. In 
like manner Wolf: to acknowledge, determine. In that case, how- 
ever, it would not differ from what follows. More correctly do Chry- 
sostom, Theodoret, Pelagius and others, understand it of an obscura- 
tion of the knowing faculty. Chrysostom: Tv οὖν ἐστίν, οὐ γινώσκω; 
σχοτοῦμαί, φησι», ovvaenalouar, ἐπήξειαν ὑπομένω. ‘Theodoret: Ὃ yae 
ἡττώμενος ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς» καὶ μέντοι καὶ τῆς ὀόγῆς τῷ πάθει μεθύων, οὐκ 
ἔχεν cay τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς ἁμαφτιάς" μετὰ δέ γε τὴν παῦλαν τοὺ πάθους: τὴν 
αὔσθησιν δέχεται τοῦ xaxov.t Although, by means of sin, a mighty 
discord has been introduced among the powers and capacities of the 
human spirit, still, that original disposition, according to which they 
should all act in harmony, is still manifest; man can never will with- 
out having reasons in his mind for the volition. Inasmuch, as sin is 
a thing blind and lawless, however, there cannot possibly be any 
solid, but only the semblance of grounds for it,—grounds, moreover, 
which both before and after the act, are instantly recognized by man 
himself as false pretexts, although in the moment of execution they 
appear satisfactory. In so far the Apostle may say that, at the time 
of sinning, he knows not what he does, is wholly blinded. 

ov yae 6 ϑέλω χτλ. Bengel: Mancipium indigno domino primum 
servit cum gaudio, deinde cum merore, postremo jugum excutit. 
Although, according to the above observations, we might here, with 
Chrysostom, understand $éa to mean merely a cold approval, we 
prefer taking it in the sense of ἥδομαυν which it has in the Hellenistic. 
Matt. xxvii. 43. Frequently in the LXX. for yon. Deut. xxi. 14. 
1 Sam. xviii. 22. What man wishes before and after the commis- 
sion of sin, what he cannot but judge to be right, is not yet brought 
to pass. ‘The experiences which Paul here delineates, force them- 
selves so strongly upon every man who has become sensible of the 


* What then is this od γινώσκω It means, lam involved in darkness, I am 
hurried away, I sustain a wrong. 

+ For he that is overcome by pleasure, or again the man intoxicated with 
the passion of anger, has nota clear perception of the sin; but, after the pas- 
sion has ceased, he acquires a sense of its evil. 


29 


226 CHAPTER vil. v. 15. 


moral dissonance in his nature, that in fact it is not necessary to sup- 
pose with Dr. von Ammon, that the Apostle exaggerates the matter, 
in order afterwards rightly to exalt the gospel. The following 
weighty testimonies of heathen authors, who agree with Paul, are 
here quoted in their right place. 'Thucyd. Histor. 1. II. c. 45, Dio- 
dorus says: ᾿Απλὼς δὲ ἀδύνατον xat πολλῆς εὐηθείας» ὅστις οἰέταυ, τῆς 
ἀνθρωπείας φύσεως δεμωμένης πεξοθύμως τι πξαξαι, ἀποτροπήν τινα ἔχειν» 
ἢ νόμων ἰσχύϊ, ἢ ἄλλῳ τῷ dég.* Diodorus Sic. Biblioth. 1. Lc. 71: 
The Egyptians never permitted their kings to judge absolutely, but 
only according to the laws, for they believed,t worraxus ἐνιόυς εἰδότας 
ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἁμαφτάνειν, μηδὲν ἧττον NEGTTEW τὰ POVAG, κατισχνομένους 
ὑπ᾽ ἔφωτος; ἢ μίσους, ἢ τινος ἄλλον πάθους. Xenophon. Cyrop. |. VI. 
ce. 1,§ 21. The Persian Araspes says: {Avo yae σαφῶς ἔχω ψυχάς..... 
οὐ yae δὴ μία γε οὖσα; ἅμα ἀγαθή τέ ἐστὶ καὶ κακὴν οὐδ᾽ ἅμα καλῶν τε καὺ 
αἰσχφὼν ἔργων eq, καὶ ταυτὰ ἅμα βούλεταί τε καὶ οὐ βούλεται πράττειν" 
Gand δηλονότι δύο ἐστὸν ψυχά, καὶ ὅταν μὲν ἡ ἀγαθὴ xeaTy, τὰ κακὰ πράτ- 
état, ὅταν δὲ ἡ πονηξά, τὰ αἰσχεὰ ἐπιχειξεῖται. Euripides, Medea, 
vi 1077: 


Μανθάνω μέν, οἷα δρᾶν μέλλω κακά» 
φΘυμὸς δὲ κρείσσων τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων. 


The same Poet (in Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. II. ο. 15.) 


ΔΛέληθεν οὐδὲν τῶνδέ μ᾽, ὧν ov νουθετεῖς 
Γνώμην δ᾽ ἔχοντά μ᾽ ἣ φύσις βιάζεται. 


Epictetus, Enchirid. 1. IT. c. 26: Ὃ ἁμαξτάνων, 6 μὲν ϑέλευν οὐ ποιεῖ; 
καὶ ὃ μὴ ϑέλει, ποιεῦ. And Simplicius in his Annot. on Epictetus: 
Τινὲς your καὶ δυσχεξαίνοντες τὰς ἑαυτῶν deéEers, καὶ βουλόμενον μὴ κυνεὶσ- 
θαυ αὐτάς, ὠθοῦνταυ ὅμως ὑπὸ τῶν ἕξεων Eni τὰ οἰκεία ὀρξεχκτά. Plautus, 
Trinummus, Act IV. sc. 2, v. 81. Scibam ut esse me deceret, fa- 
cere non quibam miser. Seneca, Ep. III: Quid est hic, Lucili, quod 
nos alio tendentes alio trahit, et eo unde recedere cupimus repellit? 


* It is an impossibility, and shows great simplicity for any one to think, 
that when human nature is driven eagerly to the commission of any act, it 
can be hindered either by the force of laws, or any thing however formida- 
ble. [ 

{ There are often men who, sensible that they are about to sin, neverthe- 
less commit vice, overpowered by love or hatred or some other passion. 

+ For I have manifestly two spirits. For a spirit that is one and single, is 
not both good and bad at once, nor at once loves things virtuous and things 
vicious, and at once is willing and unwilling to do them. But it is clear that 
there are two spirits, and that when the good prevails, the virtuous things 
are done, and when the bad, then are wrong things attempted. 

§ Iam aware they are crimes I am about to perpetrate, but rage is stronger 
than my purposes. 

| Not one of those things you advise has escaped my attention, but nature 
overpowers me when I have made my resolve. 

4 Many being even indignant at their lusts, and desirous not to excite them, 
are nevertheless urged by their habits to the indulgences familiar to them. 


CHAPTER Vil. Vv. 15, 16, 17. 227 


Quid colluctatur cum animo nostro, nec permittit nobis quidquam 
semel velle? Ovid, Metam. VII. 19. Aliudque Cupido, Mens 
aliud suadet; video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor. Seneca, 
Hippol. v. 604: Vos testor, omnes Ceelites, hoe quod volo, me nolle. 
Hence Lactantius, Instit. 1. IV. c. 29, makes the heathen say: Volo 
equidem non peccare, sed vincor, indutus enim sum carne fragili. 
Itaque ducor incertus et pecco, non quia volo, sed quiacogor. After 
the same manner the Rabbins, Berach. c. 2. p. 17.“ R. Aleksan- 
dri said in his prayer, Lord of the worlds, known and open it is to. 
thee that our will is to execute thine NO yaw Ww 33; 2), and who 
prevents it? The leaven that is in the lump.” Grotius justly ob- 
serves, however, that it would be a sad thing, indeed, if the Christian, 
as such, could apply these sayings to himself. 

V. 16. Calvin: Dum cor meum in Lege acquiescit, oblectatur ejus 
justitia, in eo sentit et fatetur legis bonitatem, ut satis, vel experientia 
docente convincamur, legi nihil mali esse imputandum, imo saluta- 
rem hominibus eam fore siin recta puraque corda incideret. Bengel: 
Assensus hominis, legi contra semel ipsum prestitus, illustris charac- 
ter est religionis, magnum testimonium de Deo. 

V. 17. This opposition, the Apostle means to say, is not of such 
sort, that, as man, I must carry it within me. Much rather does it 
arise from the fact, that lama sinful man. My proper self—that 
within me, which expresses my ideal, and with which all should be- 
come homogeneous—remains, as such, unaffected by sin. Comp. 
the remarks upon ἐγώ at ver. 15. For the illustration of this, what 
Augustine says, Conf. 1. VIII. c. 5, upon the relation of the ἐγώ to 
the ode, may be made subservient: Ego quidem in utroque (in the 
vous and in the cagé) sed magis ego in eo, quod in me approbabam, 
quam in eo quod in me improbabam. Ibi enim magis jam non ego; 
quia ex magna parte id patiebar invitus, quam faciebam volens. 
Thom. Aquinas: [llud homo dicitur operari, quod ratio operatur, quia 
homo est id quod est secundum rationem: Unde motus eencupiscen- 
tia, qui non sunt a ratione sed ἃ fomite, non operatur homo. ‘Theo- 
doret: ᾿Αμέλησας (ὁ νοῦς) καὶ καταλιπὼν τὰς ἡνίας» σκυιρτᾷν μὲν τοὺς πώλους 
παξασκευάζει, σύξεταυ δὲ αὐτός, καὶ εἰς Paga%ea καὶ χρημνοὺς σὺν αὐτοὺς 
καταπίπτει. Ὁ Thus Philo (Quod det. pot. insid. p. 170) calls the 
vous, the true dvOgazos, in Opposition to the cae’. Compare Cicero, 
Somn. Scip. c. 8: Mens cujusque is est quisque, non ea figura que 
digito monstrari potest. 

The νυνί has been falsely taken for an adverb of time by Augustine, 
Grotius, Cocceius, Koppe and many others, as if Paul intended to 
specify the difference betwixt the redeemed and the legal state, as at 
ver. 6. By this means, however, to pass over other reasons, the 
18th verse, although obviously very closely connected, is wholly 


’ 
* The mind becoming neglectful and relinquishing the reins, causes the 
steeds to start aside, and is itself carried away and falls into gulfs and pre- 
cipices. 


228 CHAPTER Vil. v. 17 —21. 


torn apart, inasmuch as it is appended by the yae, and again deline- 
ates the legalist. Compare also ver. 20, where Paul says the same 
thing, and where the νυνί, as mere inferential particle, is left out, but 
where many would erroneously urge the οὐχέτι, as Koppe translates 
it: ex quo Christiani sumus, whereas it only stands in reference to 
the antecedent proposition, and is correctly given by the Vulgate: jam 
non ego. ‘lhe Apostle means to depict the state of sin in its increase. 
Hence, we may here and ver. 20, render the ovxéz., ‘* So far has it 
come with me that....”’ The νυνί, accordingly, is merely an inferen- 
tial particle. Erasmus: Quoties igitur mens consentiens legi nititur 
ad honesta, et tamen quod diversum est agit, non ego videor agere, 
quod ago. Quis enim agat, quod nolit? 

V.18. Expressing himself somewhat tautologically, Paul now 
means, by referring back to the inward schism he has before described, 
to vindicate the startling assertion, that itis not properly man him- 
self, but that it is the blind love of sin,considered as blind, inasmuch 
as the knowing faculty not merely does not assent to it, but is dark- 
ened by it, that executes the sinful actions. Accordingly the ex- 
pressions here used, and at ver. 19 and si, are but repetitions of what 
goes before. 

The etedoxw is omitted by A C. 47, 67, and some translations 
which read, τὸ δὲ χατεφγάζεσθαι, o3. For this reading the internal 
evidence may perhaps speak, but the majority of the codices decide 
in favour of the recepta. ‘The ἐγώ, as we saw at ver. 15, is more 
commonly used by the Apostle to designate the true se/f of man, the 
inward divine disposition. Hence, for the sake of distinction, he 
here adds, that what he intends is the oéegin man. ‘Theodoret: Ti» 
ae πεξὶ τὰ καλὰ προθυμίαν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ νόμου δυδασκαλίας προσέλαβον" ἀσ- 
θενὼ δὲ ὅμως πεξὶ τὴν πέαξιν, ἑτέξαν Excxoveray οὐκ ἔχων.ἢ 

οἰκεῖ. Pelagius: Habitat quasi hospes et quasi aliud in alio, non 
quasi unum, ut accidentia scilicet non naturalia. 

παξάχειται. ‘he word properly signifies to be near, to be ready. 
Hence Judith iii. 2, to be at one’s command. Accordingly it here 
means, as De Wette turns it: ‘* to will is already at my hand, 7. 6. is 
not difficult for me.’” Pelagius: Est voluntas, sed non est effectus. 
Bengel: Jacet in adspectu sine victoria. Oxy’ sbevoxuw. The He- 
brew 8¥1 in the sense, fo be able. 

Vers. 19 and 20. See vers. 15 and 17. 

V. 21. This verse contains a summary of all that has been said 
from verse 14th, and that still continues to be illustrated from the 22d 
onward. ‘The construction is singular, and has been resolved in very 
different ways. First, there are a number of expositors, who take 
ὅτι in the sense of seeing that, (the Vulgate, quoniam,) but who then 
again deviate from each other in their views. Origen supposes a 
hyperbaton, and thus explains: ‘ Seeing there is evil in me, the law 


* [have received alacrity for things virtuous from the discipline of the law, 
but I am feeble in the practice, having no other aid. 


CHAPTER VII. v. 21. 229 


of God presents itself, and to that, after the inner man, I consent.” 
So likewise Eckerman, (Beitr. III. St.) Qicumenius gives several 
views of it. 1. αὐτὸν εὑφίσκω τὸν νόμον ἐμοὶ τὸ καλὸν ποιεῖν Meonenuév@ 
meoteonyy παξέχοντα, τί οὖν μετὰ τοῦτο; τὸ κακὸν παξάχειται. ὥστε 
οὐδὲ βουλομένῳ wou τὸ καλὸν πδάξαι ἱκανός ἐστιν ὃ νόμος βοηθῆσαι. πλὴν 
yae tov προτρέψασθαι οὐδὲν ἰσχύει. We should then require to supply 
magervac OF παξίστασθαν before δέοντι. So Chrysostom. Theophylact 
and the Syriac interpreter. In that way the thought is doubtless in 
the style of Paul. He would, however, have expressed himself very 
darkly; neither moreover would it so suit the connection, as the 
Apostle is not speaking of the design of the law, but of the conse- 
quences of its operation. 2. ebecoxw piv τὸν νόμον εἰς τὸ καλὸν τῷ 
ϑέλοντυ ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον χαξιζόμενον. τὸ yae χαχὸν 
εὑφύσχω; ὅτι ὁμοίως ἐμοὶ παφάχειται.Ϊἱ But we should then unnaturally 
have to supply an ὠφέλιμον εἶναι. So also Ambrose and Augustine 
e. duo ep. Pell. 1. I. c. 10. And so too Bengel: Egregia sermonis 
subulitate exprimuntur prima stamina harmonize inter legem et ho- 
minem. 3. εὑξίσχω, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι xarevonoa καὶ κατελαβόμην τὴν ἰσχὺν 
καὶ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ romov. ἐξεῦδον αὐτὸν axevBus, Oru οὐδὲν pov βοηθῆσαν 
ἔσχυσε. πόθεν δῆλον; ὅτυ ϑέλοντί pou ποιεὸν τὸ καλὸν οὐδὲν ἐπυκουρεῖν 
ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως τὸ κακὸν παξφάκειταιν, ἀπρακτόν μου τὸ ϑέλχειν ποιοῦν. In this 
ease ἃ hyperbaton must be supposed, and the quite unnatural mean- 
ing of to apprehend, or see throwgh, be given to eveioxa. 

We pass to the expositors who take ὅτι in the sense of that. They 
also deviate from each other according as they place the point. Some 
do so after the τὸν νόμον, and make the sequel depend either upon <é- 
ptoxw OF UPON τὸν νόμου. EKrasmus, Augustine, De Nupt. et Concup. 
1. I. ec. 30, Seb. Schmidt, Castalio and others do the former; in which 
case we must either supply a xara to νόμον OF an ἀποκαλύσέτοντα after 
it. Erasmus: Facit lex, si quando conor illi parere, ut intelligam 
meum malum penitus insitum. Beza again, Grotius and Wolf make 
what follows to depend upon νόμον. ‘They conceive the word to 
mean the νόμος ἐν τοὺς μέλεσι Mentioned in a future verse, so that the 
article before νόμον would be demonstrative. ‘I find that sinful law, 
viz. that when......evil is present with me.” ‘This explanation how- 
ever of νόμος with the article is totally contrary to the usus loquendi. 
More eligible is another, which gives it the more general meaning of 


* To me preferring to do that which is good,I find the law itself offering 
an incitement. What happens thereafter? Evil is present with me. So 
that even, when I am willing to do good, the law is not competent to help. 
For, except urging me, it has no power. 

Τ I find the law indeed subservient to good when I am willing to do good, 
and that it delights in that alone. For I find that evil is equally present with 
me. 

+ I find, ἡ. 6.1 have considered and comprehended the force and nature of 
the law. I have discovered for certain that it has no power to help me. How 
does this appear?’ Because when I will to do good, it helps me nothing, but 
evil is equally present, making my will unexecuted. 


230 CHAPTER VII. Vv. 21, 22. 


rule, as at ver. 23, chap, viii. 2. Clarke: aconfirmed habit. Hesy- 
chius: συνήθεια. In this signification it is also supposed to be found 
in Plat. Phedrus, Ed. Heind. s. 203. So Calvin, Venema, Lim- 
borch: Experior in me hance constitutionem, que mihi legis instar 
est cul sum obnoxius. Michaelis: Being then so willing to do good, 
I find myself burdened by a law, according to which, evil cleaves to 
mer? 

Another set of interpreters, however, follow a different punctuation. 
They place a comma after dpa and before oz. In this way τὸν νόμον 
—xanov, forms a parenthesis, in which we must consider superfluous, 
either νόμον, which Homberg, or κάλον, Which Hemsterhusius has ex- 
cluded from the text. Knapp remarks justly, that if an alteration is 
to be made, it were better to read τὸν χάλου. Without changing the 
text L. Bos supplies xara before νόμον, and translates, ‘* [ find then, 
while according to the law, I would do good, that evil......"” To us 
also it appears most eligible to put the point after dea, we prefer, 
however, approximating τὸ xdaoy as apposition to τὸν νόμον. Thus 
Ccumenius, after the explanations cited above: Eiz δ᾽ ἀν, εἰ συνταχθείη 
οὕτως, τῶν εἰρημένων σαφέστεξον᾽ εὑρίσκω τῷ HeAoVTL ἐμοί TO καλὸν, HT OL 
τὸν νόμον, ὅτιΐ...... ‘Theodoret, Homberg, Knapp. In Paul’s writ- 
ings explanatory appositions are frequent, Rom. vill. 23; xii. 1. 
The occurrence of the ἐμοί twice ought not to create surprise, as, in 
consequence of the hyperbaton, such a repetition was made even 
necessary. We may also conceive the occasion of the apposition. 
Paul wished to place the xaxoy in antithesis to the νόμος, but the an- 
tithesis would not have been so decided as it is, when τὸ χάλον is put 
side by side with the νόμος. We consider, ποτ ποτε as standing on 
a level in point of eligibility with this construction, the one which 
puts the point after νόμος, and takes that in the sense of rude. In 
this case, we might say that the sequel is appended in explanation, 
seeing the Apostle there, verse 23, describes the ἕτερος νόμος. 

V. 22. This and the verse following are properly a repetition of 
verses 15, 16, and 17, and that by means of a figure, which makes 
still more palpable what is there said. In place of the σύμφημι of 
verse 16, the Apostle here uses ow7doua, and the ἔσω ἀνθξωτίος for 
the ἐγώ itself. With respect to the ovrzSouar, we understand it to mean 
an actual delight in the law, and a longing after its fulfilment, such as 
the spiritual man experiences even although still in a legal state, Ps. 
exix. Compare the remarks upon verse 14. Doubtless, however, as 
was observed above, it might equally with the ϑέλευν, also indicate such 
a proposition as even the totally carnal man feels, who is not yet 
awakened to any vivid consciousness of the discord in the heart, but 
still cannot altogether suppress the Divine principle in his nature. 
Such a propension would, in that case, amount merely to allowance, ’ 
approval, in which the understanding has a larger share than the will. 


* It may be better than any of the ways were we also to construe it thus: I 
find when I desire to do good, to wit, the law, that... 


CHAPTER VII. V. 22, 23. Z31 


Thus we meet with this comprobatio in the carnal man, e. g. in 
Herod, Mark vi. 20; at John v. 35, among the Jews, and among the 
stony ground hearers, Matt. xiii. 20. In this sense the profound 
Hugo'a Sane. Victore here remarks: Ratio naturalis in vita pre- 
senti omnino extingui non potest. Ipsa est enim aquila que super- 
volat, puer qui ceteris periclitantibus pueris non periclitatur. Homo 
legis legi Dei condelectatur magis secundum rations approbationem, 
quam secundum amoris delectationem. Instead of the ἐγώ we have 
here the ἔσω dvewxos-. Originally it is true this phrase designated 
the spirit generally, in opposition to the bodily organization. In 
that sense we find it in Philo and Plato. Philo, De Agricult. p. 180, 
ed. Fr.: ἀνδρωπος tv ἐχάστῷ ἡμῶν τις ἂν εἴη πλὴν ὁ νοῦς; and De Congr. 
Quer. p. 438: 6 νοὺς χυξφίως ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἄνθρώτιῳ;, κρείττων ἐν χείρονι. 
Already Plato, De Rep. b. 1X. p. 275, ‘Tom. vii. Bip. had named the 
yous, Tov GrOganov ὃ ἐντὸς drOewnos. Even so the Rabbinical Book, 
Jalkut Rubeni, Bl. 10. 8. ΔῈ My DIS NIP) 2a NI OW? wI29N 
sm. Skin and flesh are the garment of man, the Spirit within, 
that is man.”? The Platonists and many Rabbins whom they taught, 
in like manner as the Essenes and the Eastern Theosophists in gene- 
ral had done before, also placed the principle of evil in the σῶμα, the 
ὕλη. The Spirit in that view, appeared to them pure and sinless. 
According to Paul, the ἔσω ἀνθφωπος, as is clear from the passages 
before us, as well as from 2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16, denotes not so 
much the spirit in general, as more especially the disposition, the 
religious and moral sense, the inward ἀλήθεια (see on chap. i. 18), as 
it is also called, 1 Pet. iii. 4, ὁ χφυπ τὸς τῆς xagdias ἄνθρωπος. Now, 
although this be considered in itself as good, all evil is yet not there- 
by devolved from the Spirit upon the body. Paul speaks of a two- 
fold ἐγώ, both of which we must necessarily ascribe to the Spirit. 
Pertinently Bengel: Hic jam interni, sed nondum novi tuetur homi- 
nis nomen. Compare, moreover, on the ἔσω ἄνθξωπος the learned 
annotations of Venema in Steph. de Brais Opusc. Leow. 1735, p. 
293 and 94, which, without any communication, wholly harmonize 
with the results at which we have arrived. 

V. 23. It may be asked, of how many laws, each differing from 
the other, does Paul speak in this and the preceding verse? Some 
say four, others two, and others again three. Jerome and Gicume- 
nius suppose four, which are thus designated by the latter; one of 
God, and external, 2. 6. the νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ, or the Mosaic law; an- 
other also of God and inward, the νόμος τοῦ νόος; one ungodly and 
external, the νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν the inordinate lusts of the flesh, and 
a fourth ungodly and inward, the νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, the inclinations 
to sin that reside in the soul. Justinian, following Ambrose, is dis- 
posed to assume two different νόμου, the νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ being identical 
with the νόμος τοῦ νόος, and the νόμος ἐν μέλεσι With the νόμος τῆς auae- 
τίας. The most correct way is to suppose a threefold law. ‘The 
νόμος Tov Θεοῦ 18, without doubt, different from the νόμος τοῦ νόος, for 


232 CHAPTER VII. V. 29. 


Paul says that this has a delight in the former. It is impossible, 
however, strictly to maintain the distinction, seeing that the νόμος τοῦ 
Θεοῦ; 18 likewise revealed in the νόμος γραπτὸς τῆς καρδίας, and conse- 
quently belongs to ἔσω ἄνθρωπος. ‘Whe νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας in fine is 
identical, as Augustine and Photius already remarked, with the νόμος 
ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι. 

We have, first, to illustrate this νόμος ἐν τοίς μέλεσι. The word 
νόμος is here used improperly by the Apostle, as at chap. viii. 2, in 
order to oppose it to the νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ and τοῦ νόος. Nothing ungodly 
can properly be a law, because that alone is law which is founded 
in the divine Being, like the voice of conscience in us. As sin, 
however, has usurped a blind domination over us, the love of sin 
may, figuratively, be represented as law. Aptly does Bengel, in 
rendering the different νόμου, choose the word dictamen; less happily 
Seiler, Trieb, izapulse. In how far then does the Apostle style the 
law of the love of sin, the νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι! Eveninhis day Chry- _ 
sostom remarks, that this does not affirm that the members or body, 
as such, are the basis of sin, Paul merely speaking of the power of 
sin, which manifests itself in the members, and he beautifully con- 
tinues: Ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ ἐντολὴ οὐκ Lore πονηρὰ, ἐπειδὴ δὲ αὐτῆς ἀφορμὴν 
ἔλαβεν ἡ ἁμαδτία" οὕτως οὐδὲ τῆς σαρχὸς | Φύσις, εἰ καὶ δὺ αὐτῆς ἡμᾶς 
καταγωνίζεται. ἐπεὶ οὕτως ἔσταν καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πονηξὰ, καὺ πολλῷ μᾶλλον 
ἐχεύνη, ὅσῳ καὶ τὸ κῦδος τῶν περαχτέων Eyer. GAN οὐκ Lore ταῦταν 
οὐκ ἔστιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ εὖ ϑαυμαστὸν οἶχον καὶ βασιλικὰς αὐλὰς τύξαννος 
λάβῃ xai ληστὴς» διαβολὴ τῆς οἴκιας τὸ γινόμενον. The Apostle means 
to state whatin man is opposed to the ἔσω ἀνθρωπος. ‘The term 
ἔσο ἀνθρωτίος for the inward ἀλήθεια, the φὼς in man, leads him 
to represent evil as an ἔξω ὄν, and so ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι. On the one 
hand, he may have had still passing before his mind, what he 
had already said at verse 17, viz. that sin, inasmuch as, properly 
speaking, it has invaded human nature, may be termed an ἔξω ὄν, on 
the other, that most usually it manifests itself in the inordinate incli- 
nations of the corporeal system, or more correctly in a yielding on 
the part of the mind with reference to these Hence he represents _ 
the law of the mind, the νόμος yeanros ἐν τῇ xapdiq, as the proper core 
of man, the citadel in which the true man has his throne. ‘The ex- 
ternal part of man, the enemy as it were before that citadel, is the 
love of sin. A similar image, in which the godly element is repre- 
sented as the kernel of man, the ungodly as the outward shell by 
which that is encompassed, is to be found in the Book Reschith 
Chochma (Vitr. Observ. Sacre, |. III. c. 8): “ΒΥ sin man passes 


* For as the commandment is not evil, because sin took occasion from it, 
not more so is the nature of the flesh, although by that sin torments us. In’ 
that way even the Spirit would be evil, for a much stronger reason, as it is 
she who has the government of the actions. But itis not so by any means. 
For were a tyrant or robber to seize some noble mansion or royal hall, the 
fault would not belong to the house. 


CHAPTER VII. Vv. 23, 24. 233 


more and more into the outward shell, until the whole compass of 
the soul is therein enveloped. ‘Then may it be said: Our sins have 
gone over our heads.” 

Αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με τῷ νομῷ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. ‘The expression αὐχμαλω- 
φίϑόντα is very descriptive, as Limborch says: Sicut captivus non 
libenter, sed animo reluctante in captivitatem abducitur, a validiori, 
cui resistendo impar fuit, superatus, ita et hic homo cum luctu quadam 
animi, a peccato abripitur. That the νόμος auaerias is not different 
from that ἐν τοὺς μέλεσι, we likewise perceive from the appended τῷ 
ὄντι ἐν τοὺς μέλεσι. The Dat. τῷ νόμῳ we may take up either as Dat. 
comm.: ‘‘ for the law of sin, yielding myself up thereto,”’ or as ablative 
‘‘by the law of sin, as the instrument.”’ In both cases, the expression 
has something singular. In the first construction, it must strike, that 
Paul does not the second time merely place the pronoun, but appears 
to make a distinction betwixt the party who receives the prey and 
the party who conquers. In the second construction we, on the 
contrary, look for a distinction, and in place of it, find that the cap- 
tive taken is himself represented as the instrument of taking captive. 
We decide for the second construction, and, consequently, acquiesce 
in the adoption ofa cerfain distinction betwixt the νόμος ἁμαφτίας and 
that ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι. It is, that the Apostle seems, by the νόμος auaerias, 
to understand the νόμος ἐν τοὺς wéAeoe, in its several manifestations and 
symptoms, so as to make the meaning: ‘“ The love of sin, taken as 
a whole, subjects me by the sinful motions in which it manifests 
itself.’ ‘That the condition delineated in this verse, however, does 
not suit a regenerated Christian, Augustine, in accordance with his 
earlier views, thus declared, Prop. 45: Intelligitur hine ille homo 
describi, qui nondum est sub gratia. Si enim repugnaret tantum 
consuetudo carnis et non caplivarefur, non esset damnatio; in eo 
enim est damnatio, quod obtemperamus pravis desideriis. 

V. 24. The man involved in this way in an interminable discord, 
seeing within him a strife consuming bone and marrow, and from 
which he knows no way of deliverance, breaks forth into an excla- 
mation of despair. It is impossible, however, to determine with per- 
fect certainty, how much of this bitter feeling is to be attributed to 
the person whom the Apostle has described as being in a legal state, 
and how much of it, on the other hand, is the utterance of emotions 
which he himself, now that he has experienced the efficacy of re- 
demption, cannot yet help feeling, while contemplating the legal man 
engaged in this warfare. Augustine, who was so deeply versed in 
the struggles of the inward man, repeats, while in the legal state, the 
exclamation after the Apostle, Conf. 1. VIII. ὁ. 5. The same dis- 
tress of mind is exhibited by the publican in like circumstances. 
Luke xviii. 18. (Comp. Ps. xxxvii. 4, 5,6.) ‘The sword of the 
law which divideth asunder the bones and marrow, seems not to have 
pierced so deeply into the soul of the knight Michaelis. He is 
pleased to call the mourner in question an ‘* over-anxious Jew!!”’ to 
whom the Apostle, with no small phlegm, replies, ‘* For my part I 

30 


234 CHAPTER VI. v. 24. 


have no need to utter such a complaint.’”? Here we may apply: At 
ego prorsus nescio, quid sit scripturam diluere, si hoc non est. 

τίς μὲ ῥύσεται. Beza: Num vero ignorabat, a quo esset hee libe- 
ratio expectanda? Minime profecto. Mox enim usque adeo agnos- 
cit, ut illigratias etiam agat. Sed ita loquitur ut in extremo angore, 
cogitant qualem et quantum cum esse oporteret, qui hoc posset 
prestare. 

éx τοῦ σώματος Tov ϑανάτον τούτου. It is a question, what the Apos- 
tle here understands by the σῶμα τοὺ 3avarov; and expositors separate 
into a fivefold view upon the subject. Ist, Many take σῶμα meta- 
phorically, as, according to several, it should also be taken in chap. 
vi.6. It would then have the sense, compages, structura. Ambrose: 
universitas vitiorum, and, doubtless, even wanting the addition of 
ἁμαρτία; it might still signify the body of sin. According to Grotius 
and Mosheim, Savazov must signify the effect of this fabric of sin, ὁ. e. 
misery; according to Limborch, its nature, destitution of the powers of 
divine life. If, however, it is improbable, in general, that St. Paul 
speaks metaphorically of a σῶμα, in any case where he does not like- 
wise employ the metaphor, and mention the μέλη at the same time, it 
will be still more unlikely that σῶμα, without other addition, can sig- 
nify the metaphorical body of sins. Others, such as Schéttgen and 
Koppe, consider σῶμα as purely paraphrastic as the Rabbinical ἢ}. 
Akin to this would be the explanation mass or substance, after the 
Rabbins and the Greek. See on vi. 6. It might also be supposed, 
4thly, that σῶμα involves the same accessory notion as σάξξ, VIZ. 
‘‘human nature left destitute of the powers of divine life.” Or 
finally, and this, as being the most obvious, is the meaning to which 
we adhere, σῶμα may be taken in its ordinary signification. On that 
supposition, the Apostle describes in this legalist the highest degree 
of despair, so that, torn by the strife within, the man would willingly 
strip off this earthly covering, and free himself by violence from his 
condition. The ἀπαλλάττεσθαι τοῦ βίου was also the last consolation 
of the heathen, when they could no longer bear up against the xaxca. 
See Antoninus and Gatacker in Anton. p. 323. ‘The fathers took 
σῶμα tov δανάτον for Sgro, (Suicer, Thes. T. Il. p- 1212,) and 
after them, the majority of moderns, Erasmus, Clericus, Carpzovius 
and others, have done the same. It is then usual to suppose a Hebra- 
ism in the position of the pronoun τούτου, as in Hebrew the pronoun 
always comes after the one in the genitive case, when two substan- 
tives are so united by the genitive as to form one idea. See Vorstius 
de Hebr. N. ΤῸ V. II. p. 189. Gesenius, Ausfuhrl. Lehrg. 5. 732, 
to which, in the New Testament, add such examples as Acts xiii. 26, 
λόγος τῆς σωτηξίας ταύτης; for οὗτος ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηξίας. So also Acts 
v. 20. It is not, however, absolutely necessary to suppose this mis- 
placing of the pronoun. Nothing prevents us translating, “ the body 
of this misery,’’ in the sense, the body in which I undergo this 
misery. ‘The various translations render the text very literally. ‘The 
Spanish one of Amat has the supplement: Esto cuerpo de muerte 6 


CHAPTER VII. V. 25. 280 


concupiscentia mortifera. Seiler: “ὙὙἼπὸ will deliver from the 
power of inordinate sensuality, which entails upon me punishment 
and death?” De Wette: ‘From the body of such ruin?” 

V.25. After the struggle of the legalist, with the wretchedness 
arising from his sense of inward schism, has, in this description, 
been wrought up to the highest pitch, Paul comes forward, of a sud- 
den, in his own person, and breaks forth in thankfulness to God, for 
having delivered him by the redemption from that miserable condi- 
tion. As this sally of gratitude, however, interrupts the course of 
the argument, and is quite involuntary, inasmuch as Paul meant 
still to draw his inference from all that he had previously said, he 
finds himself compelled, in a way not the most appropriate, after the 
expression of his gratitude, still to append the conclusion, which is 
intended briefly and distinctly to show the state of the legalist. From 
the circumstance of the Apostle’s representing himself as thankful for 
deliverance from the painful strife,—for that, in expressing his grati- 
tude, it is in his own person he speaks, is manifest from the mere fact, 
that this thanksgiving forms no part of the argumentation, but is an 
immediate movement of feeling. It also becomes clear, that when de- 
lineating the state of the legalist in his own person, he had, at the same 
time, painted experiences of his own at a former period. In perfect 
unison with our view of this verse, Bucer thus speaks: Dum Apos- 
tolus commemorando expenderet, ut sepe cum peccato misere con- 
flictasset, videbatur sibi in ea conditione adhuc laborare, proque sensu 
mortis istius, de ea exclamat. Mox autem, ut extulit se in considera- 
tionem beneficii Christi, quod acceperat, exultavit animo, et in con- 
trariam exclamationem, nimirum gratulationis erupit. Even so Lim- 
borch and Turretin. On the contrary, the expositors of the school 
of Augustine suppose, that the thanksgiving amounts to no more than 
that Paul, as a subject of grace, sins without the acquiescence of his 
will, nay, contrary to it; which exposition is, in point of fact, what 
Limborch ealls it, nimis diluta. 

It is equally unnatural, when some would have the final inference 
to be taken conditionally, in order thereby to impart unity to the 
Apostle’s declaration. So Erasmus: Quod nisi esset factum (if 
Christ had not delivered me), ipse quoque cum unus et idem sim 
homo, ad eundem modum distraherer, ut mente servirem legi Dei, 
carne legi peccati. Precisely so Stolz. ὸ 

In place of εὐχαριστῶ, D E and the Vulgate read ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ; 
F G, ἡ χάρυς τοῦ Κυρίου; and C, with several translations, Method., 
Damascenus and Jerome have χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ: The two first read- 
ings are manifestly false, and have only had their origin in the idea 
that the foregoing question,—which is properly, however, less ques- 
tion than exclamation—required an answer, and that εὐχαριστῶ or 
χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ appears too abrupt. Betwixt these two last readings, 
however, it might be hard to choose; χάρις δὲ suits better with the 
preceding question, inasmuch as it forms a glaring contrast; εὐχαξιστῶ 
appears quite dissevered, but has more authority in its favour. In 


236 CHAPTER VII. ¥. 25. 


the two passages adduced as parallel, 1 Cor. xiv. 18, and 1 Cor. i. 14, 
εὐχαξιστὼ equally appears, but neither of these passages is a proper 
parallel. ‘The abruptness in this exclamation may be very naturally 
accounted for according to the words of Bucer: Ingens hic affectus 
sermonem precidit, nec enim exprimit pro quo gratias agit. 

ἄρα οὖν the conclusion from the whole chapter. 

αὐτὸς ἐγώ, according to the grammar, ego ipse. So already the 
Vulgate, also the English version. See chap. ix. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 95 
xii. 13. This meaning, however, appears not to agree with the con- 
nection, for evidently Paul’s intention, in the passage, is not to show 
that such a one as He (the sense which αὐτὸς ἐγώ has, see Matthie 
Gram. § 467.) and not merely others, serves sin according to the 
σάρξ, but that the self-same person who, on the one hand, obeys the 
law of God, obeys on the other, the law of sin. Accordingly Eras- 
mus, Luther and Heumann have translated, ego idem ille; one and 
the same go serves on the one hand sin, and on the other God. In 
that case, however, the grammar requires the article ἐγὼ 6 αὐτός 
(Matthiea, § 146, § 467. 3.) What then is to be done? We may 
say as follows, 1. In place of αὐτός let aizds be read. ‘The most an- 
cient codices are without accents, and the more modern might have 
substituted the spiritus lenis for the spiritus asper, a mistake which 
has not unfrequently happened in the codices of the classics. See 
Schweighaeuser, zu. Polyb. B. VIII. s.52. Walknaer; Phenisse, 
p- 553, 556. 2. Αὐτός may signify myself, and yet in respect of 
sense amount to se/f-same. We must, in this case, conceive the 
contrast as follows: No other person except my J, that is, the an J. 
This I, however, is here not Paul as such, but in like manner as be- 
fore, the universal human 7. So is it said in German: Ich selbst 
regiere als Kénig, und verfertige zu gleich meine kleider, I myself 
reign as king, and also make my clothes, ἡ. 6. without another help- 
ing me. So also in Latin: Suorum liberorum ipse frater est et pater, 
and so in Greek. See Herman, zu Sophocles et Antigone, ν. 920. 


CHAPTER EIGHTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


Arrrr it has become manifest by what has been said, that the law cannot 
possibly stand any longer in a judicial relation to the Christian, but that 
this by no means gives rise to any relaxation on his part in the work of 
sanctification, that being what the law was incapable of operating, St. Paul 
proceeds to show, in what way true holiness is wrought out in the Christian. 
It is by his being delivered from the curse of thelaw. He likewise annexes 
a delineation of the exalted glory which awaits those who have attained in 
sanctification to the image of the Son, seeing that as his brothers, they be- 
come also co-heirs; and here closes the description of the scheme of sal- 
vation delivered in this Epistle. 


DIVISION. 


1. Sanctification which the law was unable to effect, is actually wrought out 
by faith in the redemption; and the issue of it is blessedness. V.1—9. 

2. Admonitory parenthesis, wherein all professors of Christianity are exhorted 
to a true inward life of faith. V. 10—16. 

3. The childship of believers gives them also the right to a blessed eternity. 
V. 17—28. 

4, Although the eternal glory of Christians be for the present concealed, it 
is not on that account the less certain. V.24—39. 


PART. I. 


THE SANCTIFICATION WHICH THE LAW WAS UNABLE TO EFFECT IS 
ACTUALLY WROUGHT OUT BY FAITH IN THE REDEMPTION. V.1—9. 


V. 1. Wiru this chapter, the explication of the scheme of salvation 
is brought to a close, inasmuch as, what had been already done in 
chapter vi. perfected holiness, and eternal bliss as its result, are once 
more described. Hence, Spener justly observes, Cons. Theol. P. 
IIL. p. 596: Si scripturam sacram annulo comparemus, Epistolam 
Pauli ad Romanos gemmam credo cujus summum fastigium in capite 
octavo exsurgit. Accordingly nothing comes near the lofty flight 
with which the Apostle terminates the chapter. Singularly enervated 
is Erasmus’ Paraphrase of the first half of it. 


238 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. l. 


οὐδὲν dea νῦν κτλ. These words cannot be looked upon as a con- 
clusion derived from what immediately precedes, but are rather an 
inference from chapter iii. to the subject of which the Apostle again 
returned in the second half of the fifth chapter. It follows, however, 
from the circumstance of Paul’s thus at once connecting with the dpa, 
that he presupposes his readers still keep in memory, what is the 
main point of the whole Epistle, viz. the free justification of Chris- 
tians, as above described. Accordingly this dea, as conclusion in 
reference to the man converted, forms a sharp contrast with the dea 
of chap. vii. ver. 25, as conclusion in reference to the man in a legal 
state. It is hence far amiss, in several Catholic expositors, such as 
Erasmus and Cornel. a Lap. when, following the steps of Augustine, 
Cond. duas Epist. Pel. 1. I. c. 10, they make this dea, an inference 
from the one before, and conclude, that the condition in which the 
believer involuntarily, and without the acquiescence of his mind, 
commits sin, is guiltless, consequently, that whatever of sin remains 
in him, has no condemning power. Adopting this exposition, it 
would be best to take χατάχξιμα as the abstr. pro concr.; according 
as Luther has translated it: nichts verdammliches, (condemnable) 7. 6. 
verdammenswerthes, (deserving condemnation.) Rather, however, 
must xataxe:uwa be here taken in the same sense as chap. v. 18. 
Hence, Melancthon rightly says: Significatur peccatum, quod adest 
remitti. If we here apply the explanation which we there gave of 
xataxerua, the idea would be as follows: Believers who through fel- 
lowship with Christ, have become partakers of that new life which 
leaves them no more involved in irremediable discord, but always 
more and more produces obedience to the law, are, in virtue thereof, 
delivered likewise from the xaraxe.ua, that being proximately pro- 
mulgated objectively, and hereafter also to be subjectively realized. 

“tors ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. ‘This expression refers to the mysterious 
and intimate union with the Saviour, into which the believing Chris- 
tian at once enters. A merely outward sense is given to it by Wahl 
and Schleusner: οὗ ἐν Xevora, viri Christiani. Correctly Erasmus: 
Qui in Christo insiti sunt. 

μὴ κατὰ oaexa χτλ. ‘The whole of this addition, as far as πνεῦμα, 
is wanting in C D F G, and in several versions and fathers. It is 
also banished from the text by Mill and Semler, who suppose it to 
have been brought from ver. 4. ᾿Αλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα 15. all that is left 
out in A D, the Vulgate, the Syriac and Armenian versions, and by 
Basil, Chrysostom and a whole multitude of fathers. In the context, 
no reason can be found for removing the clause; with that, on the 
contrary, it perfectly agrees; and as for ver. 4, it might be said, that 
there Paul purposely means to refer once more to what he has here. 
said. Still the authorities against the reception of the clause into the 
text are so many, and it is so easy, on the other hand, to explain 
how, as marginal gloss, it came to be inscribed, that if we think of 
receiving it at all, we must at least regard the ἀλλὰ xara πνεῦμα as 
spurious. If, however, we adopt the received reading, we require to 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 1, 2. 239 


put the point after Ἰησοῦ, and not as Bos does, connect the οἱ ἐν 
Χειστῷ with περιπατοῦσιν. We ought much rather to consider the 

μὴ κατὰ σάρκα πεξιτίατοῦσιν as epexegesis. But neither must we then 
take the appended clause as conditional, like Calvin, Melancthon and 
others, as if Paul meant to bring forward the walk of holiness as the 
condition upon which no condemnation takes place. ‘That clause is 
to be resolved nearly as follows: ‘And then shall they walk,......” 
In the very circumstance, that these believers, by virtue of their 
spiritual fellowship in life with the Saviour, no longer walk xara 
oaexa, lies also the reason, that in the event of their persevering in 
faith, and at last fully imbibing the spirit of the Saviour, the doing 
away of the xardxecua, is for them even already secured. Hence, 
likewise, the whole context manifests the fallacy of that exposition 
of the xara oaexa περιπατοῦσιν, Which the interpreters of Augustine’s 
school, both catholic and protestant, walking in their master’s track, 
adopt, viz: Sentire et perficere quidem peccatum, non vero consentire. 
The Aposile attributes to Christians a φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, spiritual 
mindedness; in proportion as this obtains, in proportion accordingly 
as man is a true Christian, the propensity to sin, the love of what is 
evil—which surely involves the sentire—dies away. ‘The sentire 
and not the consenéire is just the proper description of the discord 
which was felt in the legal state. 

V. 2. The reason why condemnation no more falls upon the man 
who lives in Christ; It is because the power of sin is broken by the 
new πνεῦμα. And how have men acquired this new πνεῦμα The 
answer follows in ver. 3, viz. ‘Through the medium of that obedience 
to the law which Christ has wrought out, and which frees men from 
the law’s curse. Pointed is the remark of Chrysostom: Τούτον γὰς 
τὸν χαλεπὸν κατέλυσε πόλεμον ϑανατώσασα τὴν ἁμαδτίαν ἡ τοὺ πνεύματος 
χάρις, καὶ ποιήσασα τὸν ἀγῶνα κοῦφον ἡμῖν, χοὺ πρότερον στεφανώσασα; χαὺ 
τότε μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς συμμαχίας ἐπὺ τὰ παλαίσματα ἑλκύσασα. ἢ 

The Apostle again uses the νόμος as he had done before, iii. 27; 
vii. 23, (comp. the remarks upon the former of these texts,) in a more 
general sense. We may place the comma either after ᾿Ιησοῦ, and so 
connect the ἐν Χριστὼ ᾿Ιησοῦ with ζωῆς» or after ϑωῆς» which would 
connect these words with the verb. ‘The latter has been done by 
Erasmus, Michaelis and others, in which case the ἐν receives the 
sense of through. But the ἐν Χριστῷ is too common a designation 
of the spiritual life, and would here too unfitly stand before, in place 
of after, the verb, to allow us to sustain this construction. 

Tov πνεύματος τὴς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ, Stands opposed to the ἁμαρτία and 
the Sdvacos. We might hence consider it as no more than an ἀσύνδε- 
τὸν for πνεύματος καὶ ζωῆς. ‘This, however, is not necessary. Rather 
does the τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ, describe the nature of the πνεῦμα, which 


* The Spirit’s grace, by slaying sin, terminates this bitter warfare, making 
the struggle light to us, first, bestowing the crown, and then with a multitude 
of auxiliaries leading us to the battle. 


240 CHAPTER VIIi. v. 2, 3. 


the Christian has now received. For the same reason we also do not 
take ζωή in the sense of blessedness, the strict antithesis to the Save- 
vos that follows, but render the phrase by this circumlocution: “ The 
impulse of that new and godly life-principle which spiritual fellow- 
ship with Christ imparts.” So correctly Heumann. 

νόμος ἁμαδτίας καὶ ϑανάτου. Some, even in ancient times, against 
whom Chrysostom takes arms, Witsius, (De Gicon. Fed. p. 380,) 
and Ammon will have the Mosaic law to be meant by the νόμος here. 
It might, in vindication of the view, be said, that the Apostle only 
employs the word νόμος in the more general sense, where the contrast 
with the νόμος, properly so called, entices him to do so, and, conse- 
quently, that here, where νόμος would not stand in such a contrast 
with the proper νόμος, it must itself denote that, and that the νόμος 
above must be taken in the improper, more general meaning. Unless 
we thus understand it, it has the sense of δυναστεία, as ‘Theodoret 
explains. This Sdvazos is the same as that whose weight, according 
to vii. 24, he felt as a legalist. 

V. 3. By a measure of an extraordinary kind, has God effected 
the removal of the curse of the law. 

To yae ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. ‘The sentence appears elliptical. If, 
with Erasmus and others, we consider the ἐν as relative to ἀδύνατον» 
then must we doubtless suppose the premises to go the length of oae- 
xos, and, like Erasmus, supply a prestitit after ὁ Θεός and indeed this 
can only be in the participial form of πονήσας or xareeyaSopevos. This 
construction, however, is violent in a very high degree, inasmuch as 
we require to supply not merely a finite verb but a participle, and 
that too in a sentence, which is already provided with a participle of 
its own. It is hence preferable, to take the τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον, as 
Nomin. Abs. Very skilful in this view, is the translation of Clericus, 
who places the whole phrase as far as caexos, at the end of the verse. 
‘God condemned......a thing, which the law, by reason of its weak- 
ness, could not have done.’’ Bengel has also very happily trans- 
lated: Deus (id quod lex non poterat, nempe condemnare peccatum, 
salvo peccatore), condemnavit peccatum, We. ...... 

τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον is the adjective in place of the substantive dév- 
vauia. Respecting this ἀσθένεια of the law, see Gal. iii. 21; Acts xiii. 
59. Compare τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ νόμον. Heb. vii. 18. 

ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένευ διὰ τῆς caexos. In compliance with what we have just 
said, we shall take the ἐν 6 as causal, like the Hebrew 3 with the 
relative, as is also perhaps, done at Heb. ii. 18. ‘The meaning, ac- 
cordingly, is as follows: ‘That ἀσθένεια of the νόμος does not properly, 
lie in any defect of the νόμος itself. It is the inclinations of our will 
taking quite a different direction, it is our sinful nature, that must 
bear the blame, as the 7th chap. already taught. ; 

Now comes the means by which this ἀσθένεια was remedied. 

ἐν ὁμοιώματι caexds auagrias. aes, as in John i. 14, (Comp. 
Heb. ii. 14. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Phil. 11. 7), designates human nature 
with the accessory notion of weakness. Hence, Col. i. 22, ἐν τῷ 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 3. Way 


σώματυ τῆς σαρχός. ἴῃ man, the σάεξ ever exists as ἁμαρτία, and 
hence the appended τῆς ἁμαδτίας. The ὁμοίωμα, however, relates 
not to the τῆς ἁμαξτίας, but to the oaef only. ‘The uncommon pe- 
culiar feature in our Saviour’s appearing just was, that in him we 
behold a human nature encumbered with all the consequences of sin- 
fulness, and yet without sin itself coming to light. See Tertullian, 
con. Marcion, |. v. c. 14. Pel.: Ostendit eum eandem quidem car- 
nem sed absque peceato portasse. Similitudo hic habet veritatem. 

χαὺ meer ἁμαστίας. We have first a word to say respecting the 
punctuation. ‘The Vulgate, and following it, Erasmus, Corn. a La- 
pide and others, place the point before xa:, and connect περὶ ἁμαξτίας 
with xacéxewe. Wulgate: De peccato condemnavit peccatum. ‘his, 
however, will not do, because between the participle πέμψας and the 
verb xazéxewe, Which is joined with it, a xa¢ cannot be interposed. 
Hence the Syriac interpreter leaves the xa: out altogether. Moreover 
by this combination of the words, we do not obtain a suitable sense. 
In the trace of Origen, Erasmus most unnaturally comments; Coar- 
guit peceatores, ut qui antehac falsa justitia imagine deceperant, nunc 
palam esset eos impios fuisse, cum Christum legis finem sub pre- 
textu legis servande occiderent. Best of all Bengel: Eo nomine 
quod peccatum est; which, however, is still feeble. If, however, we 
conjoin the wee: ἁμαξτίας with what precedes it, which is, also, for 
this reason, becoming, that πέμπειν is usually construed with περὶ 
zwos, then may we either apprehend it in the more general sense of 
on account, in respect of sin, which is done by Theophylact: ἕνεκα 
Tov καταγωνίσασθαι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, and by Gicumenius: ἕνεκα τῆς apae- 
τίας tov ἐξᾶφαν αὐτήν: or in the more confined sense, which Augustine, 
Pelagius, Calvin, Melancthon, Heumann and others prefer, viz. that 
ἁμαφτία, per meton. abstr. pro concr. stands for sin offering, just as 
the LXX. also translate DWN, by πεεὶ ἁμαρτίας (Heb. x. 6. Ps. xl. 6), 
and just as his expiatory death‘is in the strictest sense, represented 
as the purpose of the Saviour’s appearing; so too does auaerca in this 
metonymic sense occur at 2 Cor. v.21. And Philo himself, De 
Vict. p. 837, has weed auaerias instead of ἡ Svoia περὶ ἁμαρτίας. The 
former of these senses appears the more natural, although being the 
more general, it does not exclude, but rather chiefly refers, to the 
more special one. 

xaréxewe τὴν auaervay ἐν τῇ oaexte In the elucidation of these 
words, which also affect the apprehension we form of the preceding 
context, expositors have been much divided, as to whether xazaxec- 
vew Stands in the sense, fo punish, and consequently that which, in 
ecclesiastical terminology, is called the obedientia passiva, is treated 
of; or whether it stands in the metonymic sense (per meton. cause 
pro effectu) of doing away, and so involving a reference to the obe- 
dientia activa. ‘The former view is found in Origen, Erasmus, Cas- 
talio, Hammond and others, the latter in [renzeus, Chrysostom, Ter- 
tullian, Augustine, Beza, Justinian, Grotius and many more. ‘There 
are some whio, in rather an obscure way, endeavour to blend the two. 

31 


242 CHAPTER Vill. v. 3, 4. 


So Melancthon, Bucer and Limborch. They give to xacaxevvew the 
sense of fo take away, and to mei ἁμαρτίας that of on account of the 
sin offering, and expound: In consequence of Christ’s oblation, he 
took away sin in the human nature, inasmuch as he has done all that 
is necessary for its removal, and from this its removal gradually en- 
sues. When we weigh the admissibility of the two views, no objec- 
tion can be brought against either. ‘The idea that sin was punished 
in the person of Christ, or that he has borne the penalty of it, is in 
the New Testament of very common occurrence. Nor is the other 
metonymical meaning of xaraxevew unfrequent. We find χρίσις 
used in that way, in regard to Satan, John xii. 31; xvi. 11, in which 
passages it denotes making inoperative, breaking its power. Ire- 
neus: Condemnavit peccatum, et jam quasi condemnatum ejecit ex- 
tra carnem. Hence Tertullian translates: evacuavit peceatum in 
carne. It is, consequently, equivalent to xavaeyey, c. vi. 6, and Paul 
may have selected the word with a reference to χατάχειμα in ver. 1. 
To choose betwixt the two, and exclusively enforce one is difficult, 
considering, as we have already shown atc. v. 19, that the obedien- 
tia passiva and activa cannot be separated in the concrete. When 
he entered into human nature, now subverted as it is by the effects 
of sin, the Saviour, moved by his perfect love, took upon himself all 
sin’s consequences and penalties, not excepting death and the pains 
with which it is connected. This is the xaraxecvewy in the first sense. 
Inasmuch, however, as such taking upon himself of human nature 
and sin’s consequences, was an act of the highest love, Christ did 
thereby likewise take away sin in human nature, robbed it of its 
power, and fulfilled the law, which hitherto the Sapé had been unable 
todo. ‘This is the xacaxpivew in the second sense. Supposing the 
two senses to have generally stood distinctly apart in the Apostle’s 
mind, and thaf\he here brings forward but one, that probably was the 
last, inasmuclrasit is the one with which the τὸ yap ἀδύνατον τοῦ νὸ- 
pov best suits. Comp. Usteri, s. 89. 

To ἐν τῇ σαρκί, the Syriac translator, even in his day, supplied αὐ- 
τοῦ. But the pronoun is better away, so as that σάρξ may denote 
human nature in general. 

V.4. The import of this verse points us back to verse 2. We 
were there told that the man redeemed is no more subjected to the 
domination of sin. Why? Because Christ has realized the ideal of 
holiness, and exhibited a holy humanity. The intention of that was, 
that the requirements of the Divine law should by this mediation be 
also realized in us. For, it is said in the sequel, Christians have the 
φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος. ‘The mode of the causal connection of this 
new frame of mind with the appearing of that sinless humanity in 
the Saviour, Paul does not in this place more minutely state. (Com- 
pare, however, verse 9.) 

That which constitutes the end and aim of the whole work of re- 
demption is here set forth, viz. that state in which the objective 
announcement of sins having been done away, shall be subjectively 


CHAPTER Vit. Vv. 4, 5. 243 


realized. In the life temporal, preparation is made towards such a 
state, according to the measure of appropriating faith. ‘To the sub- 
jective side of justification, the statement has been referred by Bucer 
alone of ail evangelical expositors. ‘The rest find here a description 
merely of what is objective. (On the relation of that which is sub- 
jective, to that which is objective, in the redemption, compare the 
commentary on chap. v. 16.) So perhaps even Chrysostom: Τί γὰρ 
ἐχεῖνος ἐβούλετο, καὶ τί ποτε ἐπέτασσεν; ἀναμάρτητον ELVaL. τοῦτο τοίνυν 
κατώξθωται νῦν ἦμιν διὰ Χειστοῦ. χαὶ τὸ μὲν iin τς χαὶ πεξυγενέσ- 
Gat, γέγονεν ἐχείνου. τὸ δὲ ἀπολαῦσαυ τῆς νύίχης: ἡμέτερον. ἢ And 50, like- 
wise, Theodoret and Ambrose: Quomodo autem impletur in nobis 
justificatio, nisi cum datur remissio omnium peccatorum? Evangeli- 
eal expositors lay stress upon ἐν jucv, which, they say, is to be distin- 
cuished from ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, and intimates that the fulfilment of the law is 
duly conveyed over to us, in as far as the law is by faith fulfilled in 
us. So Wolf, Hunnius and others. Melancthon insists, but in an 
obscure way, that the communication of righteousness of life is also 
involved. Still less will it do to take, with Carpzovius, the ἐν ἡμῦν, in 
the sense, among us. Paul selected this preposition, to put before 
ἡ μῦν, and no other, because the ¢nward fulfilment of the law, by the 
bent of the soul that way, is the main point. 

τοῖς μὴ κατὰ odexa πεξιπατοῦσιν. ‘The xara here denotes, that all 
that comes out in the life, is of a piece with the inclination of the 
cap or the πνεῦμα. The περιπατεῖν is the expression of the φρόνημα. 
The more the φρόνημα stands under the influence of the πνεῦμα τοὺ 
Xecorov, the more will this be manifested in the πεξιπατεὶν. 

V.5. The intermediate idea here omitted is: By the believing re- 
ception of Christ as a Saviour, man is no more xara oaexa, the πνεῦμα 
manifests its efficacy. ‘Thos. Aquinas states the connection of the 
verse in the following way, which, however, is forced: ‘*'The Apos- 
tle means to show, that Christians enjoy blessedness. Ver. 5 must 
be the minor, ver. 6 the major proposition, and the conclusion as 
follows: Therefore, wherever as among you, the geovqjua τοῦ πνεύμα- 
τος exists, there must there be blessedness.”’ 

geovovow. Erasmus: curant. Correctly Grotius: φρονεῖν Paulo 
non ad intellectum, sed ad studium solet referri. ‘The same is the 
ease in the LXX. the Apocrypha and profane authors. Thus in 
Dion. Halic. 1. 1.11: οὐκ ἀναλήψεσθε τὴν peovtida τῆς πατρίδος. Me- 
Jancthon: Aliqui imaginati sunt carne significari tantum appetitiones 
sensuum. Deinde affingunt rationem et voluntatem legi Dei etiam 
sine Spiritu sancto, posse obedire. Et Spiritu intelligunt cogitationes 
et conatus rationis et voluntatis sine Spiritu sancto, atque ita trans- 
formant Evangelium in philosophiam. Hee depravatio Pauline sen- 


* What was the object of his wishes and what did he enjoin? It was, that 
you might be without sin. Now, Christ has already achieved this for us. To 
combat and to vanquish it, was his part. It is ours, to enjoy the victory. 


244 CHAPTER VIII. v. 6, 7. 


tentie procul repudianda est, et e contra statuendum, quod caro vere 
et proprie significet totam naturam hominis sine Spiritu sancto. 

Ver. 6. As on frequent other occasions, when mentioning the two- 
fold kingdom of grace and of sin, the Apostle feels himself moved to 
state the final issue of each, so likewise here. ‘The yae is no more 
than transitive particle; δέ would have been preferable, but it had 
occurred just before. ‘The peovyua has the same sense as the φξονεὲν 
in the former verse. "This sentiment has been most inappropriately 
cited as an argument against the authority of reason in divine things. 
So ex. g. Gerhardi Loci Theol. T. IL. p. 362. Accordingly the word 
is neither correctly interpreted by reason, nor with ‘Theophylaet by 
παχεῖα καὶ ὑλικὴ διάνοιαν nor with the Vulgate by Prudentia, but 
with Grotius and Castalio, studiwm; Disposition: Hesychius: ϑέλημα. 
Θάνατος ζωή: Misery and blessedness. (See on 6. v. ver. 12.) 

V. 7. Paul designs to show in how far the state of a person un- 
converted must necessarily be a state of misery, viz. inasmuch as he 
is involved in continual war with God. Comp. James iv..4. Pro- 
vided that the knowing faculty of man has not been darkened, he 
must recognize it as his chief felicity, that he depends upon God, see- 
ing that thereby alone his want ean be supplied. But sin blinds 
man, and persuades him that life apart from God, will procure him 
happiness. In this manner the natural relation betwixt God and 
man is reversed, and man begins to hate and to fly from the Being 
whom he yet properly seeks. For even while engaged in the pur- 
suit of sin, the sinner is seeking a good, whose enjoyment will make 
him fully and for ever happy, consequently God, he alone being such 
a good. 

The τῷ yae κτλ. expresses how that enmity manifests itself, and 
the οὐδὲ κτλ. which follows, how an opposition of the sort lies in the 
nature of the unregenerate man. Qcumenius: Ἔν ὅσῳ μὲν yae ἔστι 
δῆλον ὅτι οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται: ἐν ὅσῳ καὶ παρέλθη χαὶ ἀπογένηταυ τοῦ ἄνθρώ- 
που, οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἔστιν; ὥστε οὐδ᾽ οὕτως ὑποτάσσεται. Ὁ Augustine, Prop. 
49. Quomodo recte diceretur, nivem non posse calefieri, neque enim 
potest; sed cum adhibito calore solvitur, et calescit aqua, jam nemo 
potest nivem eam dicere. Comp. Jer. xiii. 23. 1John ii. 8, 9. 
Mat. vii. 18. Melancthon: Hic locus maxime refutat Pelagianos et 
omnes qui imaginantur, homine sine Spiritu sancto legi Dei obedire. 
Sed hic error inde oritur, quod putant lege Dei tantum externam dis- 
ciplinam requiri, hee imaginatio abducit eos a recta via. Sciendum 
est igitur lege Dei requiri interiorem obedientiam et quidem perfect- 
am etintegram. Animus securus sine Spiritu sancto non videt iram 
et judicium Dei. Rursus animus perterrefactus, ut in Saul et Juda, 
ubi sunt terrores sine fide et consolatione Spiritus sancti, concipit hor- 


* In so far as it exists, it evidently is not subject, and in as far as it has 
passed away and departed from a man, it does not at all exist. So that even 
thus it is not subject. 


CHAPTER VIII. v. 8, 9. 245 


ribilem fremitum et indignationem adversus Deum. Itaque Paulus 
hie non tantum libidines vel alia nota vitia, odia, &c. accusat, sed 
multo magis fontes horum malorum, scil. ignorationem Dei, dubita- 
tionem, indignationem adversus Deum. 

V. 8. The antithetical form which the δέ indicates, seems not to 
suit the statement here made. Hence we must either suppose that, 
in an anomalous way, the δέ stands for yae, in which case the sen- 
tence would be of the nature of a corollary to the preceding verse; 
So Chr. Schmid and De Wette. Or we must, on the other hand, 
consider δέ as substituted for οὖν, and as deducing an inference from 
the whole preceding context. So Beza, who translates it, ergo. 
Taken in this way, it begins a new sentence, and to that, v. 9 stands 
in opposition. We find it so used at 2 Cor. i. 6. he transition in 
the ideas would then be as follows: I have just said that the law is 
fulfilled in Christians by means of the πνεῦμα. ‘Thereby do ye be- 
come acceptable to God. Because what | have been saying infers, 
that the man who is living in the σώρξ can not please God. Now ye 
have the πνεῦμα, and in virtue of that, and of the fulfilment of the law 
to which it leads, and which operates friendship with God, ye must 
be well pleasing in his sight. 

V.9. With this verse, St. Paul properly reverts to ver.4. Now 
ye have the zvetua, by means of it, the fulfilment of the law, and 
thereby again, blessedness. 

eimee κῦλ. The Apostle makes the application of what he has 
said in general, respecting the distinction between πνευματίχος and 
oagxixos, to the persons whom he is addressing. He is thus drawn 
into a parenesis, and through it is conducted again into his theme at 
ver. 17; from which he again repeats in detail what he had said at 
ver. 6, viz. that the redeemed look for life and peace, as the issue of 
their course, an exaltation to great glory. Were it only on account 
of the following exclusive declaration, εἴ cus πνεῦμα Χειστοῦ οὐκ ἔχεν 
xa. it would be improper in Chrysostom, Theophylact and Suicer, 
to take εἔπεξφ for ἐπειδήπεξν as asseverative, according to which Eras- 
mus translates guandoquidem. More correct is Theodoret’s way, 
ἀμφιβολιας δὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν. ‘The οἰκεῖν expresses the permanency of 
this state of being filled with God's spirit. In this sense we read, 2 
Sam. vii. 5, 6, of God’s dwelling in the temple. Eph. 1.17. To 
the same effect is the μονὴν ποιεὺν, John xiv. 23. Rabbinical authors 
use the corresponding verb, Mw of the ΡΠ ΠῚ". 

εὖ δέ τις mvevua Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχευ κτλ. We have here a warning that 
faith, which is only seated in the understanding, is not accounted 
Christianity. There is in the true Christian, the life of Christ. The 
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ is made the same with the πνεῦμα Θεοῦ in the pre- 
ceding context, and the same with the Χριστός in the one following, 
inasmuch as the spirit of the Redeemer vouchsafed to the believer, is 
but a peculiar manifestation of the spirit of God. John xvii. 10, 


* Expressive of doubt. 


246 CHAPTER Vil. v. 10. 


PART ΤΙ: 


ADMONITORY PARENTHESIS, IN WHICH ALL PROFESSING CHRISTIANS 
ARE EXHORTED TO LEAD A TRUE INWARD LIFE OF FAITH. v. 10— 
16. 


V. 10. The exposition of this verse is involved in that of the fol- 
lowing one. It may take a threefold form. We may suppose both 
verses to refer to a spiritual resuscitation; or this may be supposed 
referred to in ver. 10, alone, and in ver. 11, a corporeal resuscitation; 
or, in fine, both verses may speak of the physical revival of the body. 
We shall consider each of these three modes of viewing the passage 
by itself, According to the first, the connection of the ideas is as 
follows: In saying that every Christian must be filled with the Spirit 
of Christ, I do not mean thereby to deny, that this quickening pro- 
cess, effected by the Redeemer’s spirit, proceeds in man very slowly. 
In the first instance, the soul is filled with new vital powers; it is by 
degrees only that the body is sanctified. But God, who was power- 
ful enough to liberate Christ’s body from physical death, will also 
know how to weaken the power of spiritual death in you. In this 
explanation, the yexgov is taken in the sense of, destitute of the 
powers of divine life, a sense which it bears in conjunction with πίσ- 
τις teyae Bucer: Mortuum dicitur, quia vita ejus nil quam peccare 
est. The 207 would then signify specially, holiness. ‘The ϑνητά 
would either stand for vexea, in the same spiritual sense as formerly 
the vexedr, or be an epithet intended merely to express the misery of 
the body, in the same sort of way as at chap. vi. 12. The entire 
thought, viz. that, in the regenerated Christian, the inordinate desires 
of the body, are later of ceasing than those of the soul, although 
even to them grace extends at last her healing power, is, as Βα ἃ 
remarks, a well-founded experience. In allusion to it, Chrysostom 
pertinently says: Οὐ τὴν τυξαννίδο τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἔσβεσε μόνον ὃ XEevoros, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν σάρχα κουφοτέραν καὶ πνευματικωτέραν ἐποιήσεν, οὐ τῷ τὴν 
Φύσιν μεταβαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῷ πτερῶσαν μᾶλλον αὐτήν. καθάπερ γὰρ πυρὸς 
ὁμυλοῦντος συδήρῳ, καὶ 6 σίδηρος γίνεταν πῦρ ἐν TH οἰκείῳ μένων φυσεῦ; 
οὕτω καὶ τῶν πιστῶν χαὺ πνεῦμα ἐχόντων | σὰρξ λοιπὸν πρὸς ἐκεύνην με- 
θίσταταυ τὴν Evépyeray, ὅλη πνευματικὴ γινομένη, σταυρουμένη πάντοθενς 
καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ συναναπιτερουμένη. ἢ Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 19. ‘This construc- 


* Christ did not merely extinguish the tyranny of sin, but elevated and 
spiritualized the flesh, which he did, not by changing its nature, but rather 
by giving it wings. For just as when fire has been long beside iron, even 
the iron becomes fiery, though retaining the while its own nature, so the very 


CHAPTER VI. v. 10. 247 


tion of the passage is defended, although with some modifications, 
by Chrysostom, Erasmus Piscator, Locke, Chr. Schmid and others. 
In its favour may be urged, in regard to ver. 10, that this verse is 
then very appropriately connected with the preceding context, and in 
regard to ver. 11, that what is there spoken of, is the efficacy of the 
spirit of God in man, from which we should expect, not a bodily, but 
a spiritual quickening. ‘To the same effect is the circumstance, that 
by xai τὼ δνητὰ σώματα, the resuscitation of the body is put upon a 
level with that of the soul, although it must not be forgotten that in 
Paul’s writings, we are accustomed to find a blending of allusions to 
a bodily and spiritual resurrection. ‘There are, however, several 
things to be objected to this explanation, particularly in ver. 11. It 
is unnatural to make the ϑνητά there metaphorical, like νεκρόν; in that 
sense it never does appear. (Compare, however, 2 Cor. ν. 4.) It 
is equally improbable that here, where bringing to life is really 
spoken of, it should be an almost idle epithet, expressing no more 
than, in a general way, the misery of the body. Nor is it very likely, 
moreover, that the Spirit of God should here be spoken of as having 
raised up Jesus from the dead, for no other reason but because the 
ascription of that to him, served as a proof that he must also possess 
great power in quickening the Spirit. Still, Col. ii, 12, would be 
very analogous. 

The second way of apprehending the passage must hence appear the 
more eligible. ‘Chat way explains this 11th verse, of bodily resur- 
rection, but finds spiritual quickening in the 10th. Now, the inter- 
preters who take this view separate into classes. Origen, ‘Theodoret, 
CEcumenius, Clarius, Grotius, Raphelius, Taylor, Heumann and 
others, will have νεχρός stand in the sense of revexpapévos, 1. 6. with- 
out power for sinning, lifeless in respect of that, a meaning which 
occurred, chap. vi. 11. Inasmuch, however, as yepxos, where it has 
this meaning, appears in conjunction with the substantive to which 
the deadness refers, the δὲ ἁμαρτίαν must here be translated with re- 
spect to sin. ‘This signification of διά, ‘Taylor thinks he can prove 
from John xi. 15, 42; xii. 9, 30. Rom. ii. 24; iii. 25, and Raphe- 
lius on the last text, attempts to justify it by a passage from Polybius. 
It has no place, however, either in that author or in the texts of 
Scripture. Moreover, the two members of our verse, have not the 
form of a parallel, but of a contrast (and that not merely logical). To 
the other class of these interpreters, that which adopts the second 
mode of explanation, belong Melancthon, Bucer, Hunnius, Michaelis 
and others. ‘These take vexed; in the sense we have already designed. 
Melancthon: Quanquam in anima inchoata est lux et vita eterna, 
tamen adhue in massa carnali heret peccatum; Ideo destrui massam 
carnalem oportet, ut postea induamur corpore purificato. ‘They must 


flesh of those who believe and possess the Spirit, is changed at last into that 
kind of essence, becoming altogether spiritual, crucified in every part, and 
obtaining wings along with the Spirit. 


248 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 10. 


suppose that here, as frequently elsewhere, Paul looks upon the bodily 
resurrection of Christ, as the symbol of our spiritual resurrection, 
Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. Eph. ii. 5,6, and, as a solace under the 
thought, that it does not, in the present life, fully serve as organ to 
the sanctified soul, wished to associate the remembrance of the glori- 
fication, which one day awaits the body. In this manner certainly 
an easier transition is opened up from ver. 10 to ver. 11. 

Even this view, however, has less to recommend it than the one 
which we have stated above as the third. For when we narrowly 
examine both verses, it does seem that the ϑνυνητὼ σώματα must be a 
resumption of the σώμα νεκρόν, and, accordingly, that it is more judi- 
cious to understand ver. 10, as also referring to the bodily resurrec- 
tion. In this case, the two verses involve a prolepsis, whereby Paul 
means to obviate the objection, that Christians while upon earth are 
not yet fully delivered from the Savaros, laid down in verse 6, as the 
consequence of the state of sin. (Beza: Quia dixerat hominem, in 
quo Spiritus Christi esset, altera adhue sui parte herere in morte, 
non videbatur nisi dimidiz salutis spem nobis fecisse.) That the 
Apostle wished to clear away this objection is very probable, consi- 
dering that from verse 6, there was present to his mind the intention 
to speak of the glorification of believers, which he takes up consecu- 
tively at verse 18. ‘This will be an additional motive disposing us 
to understand verse 10 of bodily death. So Augustine, Calvin, Ben- 
gel, Baumgarten and many others. ‘The sense accordingly would 
be: In your spirit the new life which Christ imparts already exists; 
it has not, however, as yet done away all ἁμαρτία, nor even all the 
consequences of sin. Your body still continues subject to mortality, 
but as Christians are assimilated to the glorified Saviour, upon all 
the stages of his being, (John xvii. 24,) so shall they, in as far as they 
have become one with him by the Spirit, experience the operation of 
that even in their body, and equally with himself shall rise again. 
This view, according to which the bodily, is but the compliment or 
culminating point of the spiritual resurrection, frequently recurs in 
the New Testament. See in the sequel, verse 23, where the ἀπολύ- 
Teadis Tov σώματος is spoken of, 

Χειστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. This must not be enervated, as is done by Lim- 
borch: Scilicet per doctrinam; it is as.the resumption of πνεῦμα Xeco- 
zou, the positive reception of the life divine into men. Compare 
Gal. iv. 19. 

vexeov according to our view, requires to be translated, mortal. 
This sense it may have in the Hellenistic usus loquendi, after the 
analogy of the Hebrew nn, which also means, moribundus. Theo- 
dotion, Isa. xxxi. 14, (as quoted by Schleusner,) has νεχφόν in the 
sense of ϑνητόν, which we also find in the domain of pure Greek’ 
literature. Arrianin Epict.]. UI. ὁ. 10: τὸ σωμάτιον; τὸ οὐκ ἐμόν; τὸ 
φύσει νεκρόν. 

δὲ ἁμαρτίαν. Augustine de Pecc. mer. et rem. |. I. c. 7: Hoe dic- 
tum est, ne ideo putarent homines, vel nullum vel parvum se habere 


CHAPTER VIII. v. 11, 12. 249 


heneficium de gratia Christi, quia necessario morituri sunt corpore. 
Owing to the causal relation, which subsists betwixt ἁμαρτία and Sa- 
vatos, EVerY vexeov is a consequence of the ἁμαστία. The δικαίωμα 
on the contrary, diffuses fo upon all the stages of existence. 

πνεῦμα is not here the Divine Spirit, as several contend, but the 
spirit of man, as is clear from the contrast with σῶμα. : 

ζωή is emphatical, the life of glory, to which, by means of ἃ re- 
fined organization, the body will equally be raised. In place of ζωήν 
F G, the Armenian and the Vulgate read ζῇ, for no other reason, it 
would seem, but because the substantive appeared less appropriate. 
That, however, is the most forcible, although it does not involve the 
precise emphasis, which Chrysostom gives it, who understands the 
πνεῦμα Of God: οὐχ etme, τὸ πνεῦμα ζῶν, ἀλλὰ δωὴν, ἵνα δείξε xai ἑτέρους 
τοῦτο δυνάμενον παρασχεῖν. In a similar way, the substantive is 
used by Philo, De Profug. p. 459. ‘O δὲ ἀγαθός ἐστι ἡ ἀρετὴ καὺ ἡ 
Bun, ὁ δὲ xaxds ὃ Savaros. 

διὰ δικαιοσύνην. The basis of the spiritual life in glory is righteous 
ness, holiness through Christ, which is objectively proclaimed to 
man, and subjectively realized within him. 

V.11. See on ver. 10. ‘The Spirit of Christ gradually assimilates 
to Christ the whole sinful nature of man. Animz plenissima beati- 
tudo,—as Augustine expresses himself in a letter—redundat etiam in 
inferiorem naturam. ‘This harmonious relation subsisting between 
the corporeal life and the πνεῦμα, and between the πνεῦμα and the 
Spirit of God, which the Apostle declares to be the issue of redemp- 

‘tion in Christians, is described by Augustine, in the instance of man 
before the fall. Augustine de Pecc. mer. et rem. 1. II. c. 22. Fa- 
ciebat hoc ordo justitiz ut, quia eorum anima famulum corpus ἃ 
Domino acceperat, sicut ipsa eidem Domino suo, ita illi corpus ejus 
obediret, atque exhiberet vite illi congruum, sine ulla resistentia fa- 
mulatum. 

Φωοποιεῖν, used also of the resuscitation of the body, 1 Cor. xv. 22. 

διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα ἐν ὑμῖν. Instead of this reading A B, 
Clemens, Athanasius, Macarius and some others, have dca τοῦ ἐνου- 
χοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος. Seeing, however, that partly the way in 
which this reading has originated, and which it is so easy to explain, 
awakens suspicions, and partly, as the weight of the external evi- 
dences in its favour does not preponderate, we must prefer keeping 
by the reading which we have given. If, then, the dca is causal, the 
idea expressed is as follows: When the human Spirit is animated by 
the Spirit of God, it follows as a natural consequence, that its corpo- 
real organ also shall be glorified. 

V.12. Where there is an ungodly walk, the blessing which is the 
fruit of the redemption, cannot be taken in. Hence arises the obli- 


* He says not the diving Spirit, but /ife, to. show that it could impart it to 
others also, 


32 


250 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 13,14. 


gation incumbent upon Christians, to lead a godly life. Upon σάρξ, 
see c. vii. 14. 

V. 13. Retrospect upon verse 6. 

ἀποθνήσκειν, as at Romans vii. 6. 1 Tim. v. 6, to become miserable. 
Compare the Annot. on chap. vii. 12. In like manner, ζῆν means 
to become blessed. Gal. vi. 8, is a parallel. 

πράξεις τοὺ σώματος. Just as little as at vi. 6 and vii. 24, would 
any other explanation be here more natural than that which is the 
most obvious, and which considers σῶμα to mean the body, used by 
the φρόνημα τῆς σαρχός for the service of sin. Beza: Tutus homo 
quatenus non est regenitus. He thus takes it as altogether synony- 
mous with σάρξ. ‘Theodoret: Tovréore τὸ φρόνημα τῆς capxos, τὰ τὼν 
παθημάτων σχιρτήματα.δ By explanatory glosses of this sort even 
the reading σαρκὸς has here been introduced into several manuseripts. 
Paul uses πεάξεις in the same way at Col. iii. 9, where it has the 
more general signification of, motions. In the condition of the legal- 
ist, described by Paul at chap. vii. this Sovarovy was an impossibility 
--τὸ κακὸν naegdxerrar, evil cleaves to him. 

Savarovre. Ambrose: Mortificari dicuntur si cessent; non sunt 
enim si cessant: peccatum enim non est, si non fit: (having no pro- 
per being.) Compare Mark ix. 43, 45, 47. 

V. 14. It is with this, that Paul introduces the description of the 
glories that are to be the portion of Christians, founding it upon the 
fact, that they are the children of God. ‘The ὅσοι ἄγονταν again takes 
up what was said in ver. 9 and 10 of the ἐνοίκησις of Christ. In 
profane authors ἄγεσθαι likewise expresses, a strong inward impulse. 
This expression recurs in Gal. v. 18. It finely designates the vitality 
and force of that new principle imparted to man by regeneration, and 
of which Claudius admirably says (Wandsbecker Bote, Th. 4, 5. 
105): ‘*As the grain of wheat softens and is dissolved in the earth, 
and after awhile, without our knowing or comprehending how, takes 
on a life of its own kind, puts forth shoots and silently waxes apace, 
until the stalk appears above the ground, just the same according to 
the holy Scripture, is the process which goes on insuch a heart. By 
degrees it loses its own proper frame, and the propensities and views 
it had before. It feels a something working with life and power 
within it, and which more and more sets free the Spirit and elevates 
it above this world, until the day breaks, and the morning star arises, 
and the mystery, Christ in us, is brought to completion. Chrysos- 
tom: Οὔτος yap παλίν πολλῷ Tov πίροτέρον μείξων ὁ στέφανος" διὸ ὀυδὲ 
ἁπλὼς εἶπεν, ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι Θεοῦ φῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽, ὅσου πνεύματι Θεοῦ ἄγον- 
TOby δειχνὺς ὅτι οὕτω βούλεται αὐτὸ κύριον εἶναν τῆς ἡμετέρας Cars, ὡς τὸν 
κυβερνήτην τοῦ πλοίου, καὶ Yov ἡνίοχον τοῦ ζεύγους τῶν ἵπίπων.ἷ 


* The mind of the flesh consists in the sallies of the passions. 
Ὁ For this crown again is far greater than the former one. Wherefore he 
does not simply say,as many as live by the Spirit of God, but as many as are 


CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 15. 251 


υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. This appellation is doubtless merely figurative, and 
means but to express the close relationship of the love of God to the 
regenerate. ‘Ihere lies at the bottom of it, however, this profound 
sense, that the regenerated man, by virtue of his direct entrance upon 
the life of God, is really become of divine extraction, and a being after 
his own kind. 

V.15. Christians bear in their own hearts the evidence that the 
divine life, which they receive, constitutes them children of God, for 
from the time of his becoming a believer, the Christian feels within 
him a tender filial love to his God, whereas the man who is still in 
bondage to the law, from a sense of the variance betwixt them, ex- 
periences apprehension and anxiety before God. Melancthon: Do- 
nec conscientia sine fide est, in pavoribus desperanda fugit Deum, 
dubitat an exaudiat, an respiciat, &c. non invocat Deum. Hee fides 
et agnitio misericordiz Dei facit proprie discrimen inter Christianos 
et impios, quia in impiis manet dubitatio et indignatio adversus 
Deum. 

MVEDMA δουλείας. Chrysostom: ἐχεῦνου φόβῳ τιμωρίας πάντα ἔπραττον 
ἀγόμενοι; οἱ δὲ πνευματικοὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ πόθῳ." Calov: Non distinguit 
ceu diversos spiritus, sed eundem spiritum designat a diversis effectis. 
Even the alarm which the legalist feels for a holy God is divine, and 
takes its rise from the sway of the πνεῦμα in man. Itis not, how- 
ever, the New Testament zvevua, which did not become operative 
till after the redemption of Christ, John vil. 39. The πνεῦμα δουλείας» 
even John the Baptist might have imparted, but not the πνεῦμα υἷοθε- 
σίας. The disciples of John know nothing of the Christian πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον, Acts xix. 2. And hence it is that he specially ascribes to 
Christ, baptizing with the πνεῦμα, Matt. iii. 11. 

xed2ousv. Correctly, Calvin: Clamoris nomen ad fiduciam expri- 
mendam positum est, ac si diceret non dubitanter nos precari, sed 
intrepide claram vocem attollere in celum. So also Keuchen, Obs. 
in New 'Testamentt 

᾿Αββὰ is the Chaldaic, sas, Father. The Status Emphat. of the 
word is expressed by the suff. prime pers. Opit. Chald. p.49. ‘The 
6 narre is vocative, which case in the Hebrew is expressed by the 
article with the nominative. The Greek word has been appended to 
the Chaldaic, probably to explain it, and the reason for preferring the 
Chaldaic for the paternal name, is that it sounds more childlike; for 
there is but little probability in the opinion of Selden that the Tal- 
mudie passage from the Gemarah, is here to be applied, Berachoth, 
fol. 16, where we read that among the Hebrews, man-servants and 
maids were not permitted to call the master 828, but only 28. Origen 
and Ambrose expound as we have done. On the other hand, Theo- 


led by the Spirit of God, showing it to be his wish that the Spirit should be 
the governor of our life, in the same way as the helmsman is of the ship, or 
the charioteer of the yoked steeds. 

* They did all things, impelled by the fear of punishment; but spiritual 
men by desire and affection. 


252 CHAPTER VIII. v. 15, 16. 


doret holds that the double position of the name is intended to imi- 
tate the repetition of it, which is common with children. And Au- 
gustine, whom even the sagacious Calvin follows, goes so far as to 
imagine, that being given in two languages, expresses that both Jews 
and heathens would enjoy the privilege. ‘There are two more pas- 
sages in which the 33a is found along with the ὁ warye, Mark xiv. 
36. Gal. iv. 6. 

V. 16. The Apostle says that the Divine Spirit beareth witness to 
the human. ‘The chief question is, how, according to the Apostle’s 
opinion, does this take place? ‘The Socinians, Limborch and others 
suppose that the gospel is meant, that having been inspired by the 
Divine Spirit. But this it cannot be. For the Divine πνεῦμα here, 
cannot well be taken for any other than that mentioned, ver. 15, as 
inwardly reigning in man. Now, as in that sense there is aseribed 
to the new and divine πνεῦμα, the peculiar virtue of filling our hearts 
with so childlike a love towards God, that in fulness of confidence we 
address ourselves to him, it would appear that it is just in this reign 
of love within us, that the divine witness consists. In 1 John v. 10, 
likewise, we read, “" He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the 
witness in himself.’’ It follows then, that as that love, that Godward 
striving of the heart, manifests itself in prayer, which is hence so 
beautifully termed by Claudius the secret (wellenschlagen) billowing 

j of the heart, the majority of the ecclesiastical fathers, as for instance 
{ G@cumenius, Ambrose and others are correct, when, in the very im- 

" pulse of prayer, they recognize the testimony of the Holy Spirit. So 
also Calvin: Itaque non abs re Paulus nos ad hoc examen revocans, 
tune demum constare ostendit, quam serio quisque credat, ubi se 
precibus exercent, qui gratia promissionem amplexi sunt. Atque 
hic egregie refutantur nuge ille sophistarum de morali conjectura, 
que nihil alind est quam animi incertitudo et anxietas, imo potius 
vacillatio. 

συμμαφτυξεῖ τῷ πινεύματι ἡμῶν. The compound verb, like others 
of the kind, as for instance συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι, and like ovuuaerveccy 
itself, in Rom. 11. 15; ix. 1, may, doubtless, have the sense of the 
simple one, which the Vulgate, and following that, Luther gave it. 
But here the proper meaning of the compound would not be unap- 
propriate. Calvin: Neque enim sponte mens nostra, nisi preeunte 
Spiritus testimonio, hane nobis fidem dictaret. Erasmus: Neque 
quidquam vetat ut dicamus mutuam charitatem inter Deum et homi- 
nem, cum charitas sit Dei donum; ita mutuum esse testimonium 
inter Spiritum Dei et nostrum non quod noster Spiritus confirmet 
Deum, sed quod sibi testis est. Chrysostom: οὐδὲ γὰρ βασιλέως χειρο- 
τονησαντοός τινα, καὶ GVAXNEVTTOVTOS τὴν τιμὴν παρὰ πᾶσι; τολμήσειεν ἄν 
τις τῶν ὑπηχόων ἀντειπεῖν. Our spirit concludes that we are the 
children of God. His spirit impresses the seal upon that conclusion. 


* Were a king to prefer an individual, and to publish to all the honour he 
had conferred, would any of his subjects dare to gainsay him. 


CHAPTER VIII. v. 16. 253 


Compare on the subject of the testimony, of which Paul speaks, 
Buddei Inst. Dogm. p. 1849, and Spener Cons. ‘Theol. Lat. P. ΠῚ, 
p- 831. 

The Rabbins likewise speak of an inward witness of the Spirit, 
which, in one passage, resembles that here mentioned by the Apostle. 
We read in the commentary Siphre, (Schoettgen): Hac ratione rede- 
misti nos, ut, si peccemus, tu statim propitius nobis sis, e¢ Spiritus 
Sanctus dicat omni tempore, quod si sic fecerimus, remissus nobis 
sit reatus sanguinis. In a style of superlative excellence, does the 
Jew Philo, also speak of this blissful revelation of God within, 1. IL. 
Alleg. p. 92, ed. Fr. In general, however, it may be aflirmed, that 
the more profound thinkers of all climes have been alive to some- 
thing like this voice of God in the heart of man, and conscious of 
moments, in which something appears and stirs in the inmost re- 
cesses of our being, manifesting itself to be of a far higher source 
than ourselves. Who is not acquainted with the noble passage in 
the letters of Plato, preserved in Origen, c. Celsum, 1. VI. ο. 3? My- 
dames ἐστι ῥητὸν τὸ πρωτόν ἀγαθὸν; ἀλλ᾽ Ex πολλῆς συνουσίας ἐγγιγνόμενον, 
καὶ ἐξαίφνης οἷον ἀπὸ πυρὸς πηδῆσαν. Who has not heard of the φωνή 
of the son of Sophroniscus, which he himself calls Secov τὸ xat δαιμό- 
veov! Still oftener do the more profound men of eastern climes notice 
this manifestation of God in the heart. Suffice it to quote one from 
innumerable passages. Dschelaleddin Rumi, the author of the 
Methnewi, exclaims at the opening of the poem: 


Now from the body’s thraldom broke the spirit daringly, 
Ha! ’Tis the scent of Joseph’s robe,t I feel approaching nigh! 


Among moderns, compare the profound Francis Hemsterhuys, Sur 
Homme et ses Rapports, Giuvres Phil. T. I. p. 208. Ceux qui 
sont assez malheureux pour n’avoir jamais eu de telles sensations, 
soit par la foiblesse naturelle de l’organe, soit pour ne l’avoir jamais 
enltivé, ne me comprendront pas. It needs not be added, moreover, 
that that testimony of childship should not be explained to be iden- 
tical with God’s speaking as here mentioned. ‘The analogies ad- 
duced are for the sake of those, who, surrounding with a magic circle 
the desolate waste of man’s misery, would make him a secluded 
solitary, born although he was for fellowship with God, whose na- 
ture he partakes. 


* The prime good is in no wise to be described in words, but arises within 
us from much intercourse, and as if starting suddenly from fire. 
{ The symbol of Deity. 


254 CHAPTER VIII. v. 17. 


Pa wee te ee 


THE CHILDSHIP OF BELIEVERS GIVES THEM ALSO THE RIGHT TO A - 
BLESSED ETERNITY. v. 17—24. 


Δ ΣΤ. ὋὉρᾶας πῶς φιλονευκεῦ ἐγγὺς ἡμᾶς ἀγαγεῖν τοῦ δεσπότου; ἐπειδὴ yae 
οὐ πάντα τὰ τέκνα χληξονόμου; δείκνυσιν, OTL ἡμεις καὶ τέκνα καὶ XANCOVOMOL. 
ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐ πάντες χληξονόμου; μεγάλων εἰσὶ κληρονόμου πραγμάτων; δείκνυ- 
σιν OTL καὶ τοῦτο ἔχομεν; χληρονόμοι ὄντες Θεοῦ. πάλιν ἐπειδὴ κληρονόμον 
μὲν εὐναν συμβαίνει Θεοῦ, οὐ πάντως δὲ τῷ Movoyever συγχληρονόμον, δείκνυ- 
σιν ἡμας καὶ τοῦτο ἔχοντας. KO σκόπει σοφίαν. τὰ γὰξ λυπηδὰ συστείλας; 
ἡνίχα ἔλεγεν τί πεύσονταν οἱ κατὰ caexa ζῶντες; ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἀποθνήσκειν; 
ἐπειδὴ τῶν χρηστοτέρων ἥψατο, εἰς εὐρυχωρίαν πολλὴν ἐξάγευ τὸν λόγον. 

κληρονόμος, possessor. Grotius; Sententia est conveniens non tan- 
tum Israelitico, Num. xxvii, sed etiam Gentium juri. Man comes 
to have part with God, to be an heir of God, when he permits him- 
self to be filled with the divine riches, communicating to him truth, 
holiness and bliss. 1 Cor. xv. 24. 

συγκληξονόμοι Χριστοῦ. Paul’s first object in adding this, is to 
make manifest the dignity of the Christian bliss, inasmuch as it may 
well be supposed, that that must needs be a glorious possession which 
is shared with Christ himself. He, at the same time, however, takes 
occasion from this expression, as he is always wont to do in speak- 
ing of the glory that awaits Christians, not to leave untouched the 
afflictions they suffer in the present life. Just as he had before con- 
joined these two at chap. v. 3. Christ is here represented in his holy 
human nature, in virtue whereof he is the first born, that is the most 
distinguished, among the citizens of the new commonwealth of God, 
and wherein—that he might be a pattern in all things to his brethren 
—he first attained his glorification through humiliation and sufferings. 
Phil, ii..8, 9.. Heb. v. 7,.8,,9... 2 Tim. ii..11,, 12.. ΤῸ 5: ΠΕῈΒ 
also be kept in mind, that according to the doctrine of the New Tes- 
tament, believers, in as far as they have been received into the fellow- 


* See you how he strives to bring us near to the Lord? For inasmuch as 
not all children are heirs, he shows that we are both children and heirs. And 
forasmuch as all heirs do not inherit great possessions, he shows that this 
advantage is ours, we being heirs of God. Moreover, since it has fallen to 
some to be an heir of God, but not to be altogether a co-heir with the only 
begotten, he shows that we possess this privilege also. And mark his wis- 
dom. Compressing what was grievous when he said, What shall they suffer 
who live according to the flesh,—that they are destined to die; here, when he 
touches the more favourable views, he extends the discourse into much am- 
plitude. 


CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 17, 18, 19. 255 


ship of Christ’s life, follow him in all the stages of his being. Com- 
pare what is said upon ov@yv, 6. vi. 8. Calov: Passiones non sunt 
cause meritorie, sed modus vel ordo, quem Deus in huminibus ad 
eternam hereditatem admittendis constituit et observat. Causa enim 
unica constituta est υἱοδεσία. 

V. 18. It here strikes the Apostle how little the present apparent 
condition of Christians corresponds with what they shall hereafter be. 
Chrysostom: ὅρα πῶς ὁμοῦ καταστέλλει xal ἐπαίρει τὸ φρόνημα Tov ἀγω- 
νιζομένων. ὅταν yae δείξῃ μείζονα τὰ ἔπαθλα τῶν πόνων, καὶ meoteéner 
μειζόνως, καὶ οὐχ ἀφίησυ μέγα φρονεῖν, ἅτε νικωμένους τῇ τῶν στεφάνων 
ἀντιδόσει.ἢ 

λογίζομαι. Wulgate, existimo, which Erasmus justly considers 
feeble. He puts reputo, and says: Agit Paulus de consideratione 
eorum que credit, per quam veluti rationem subducit. It were best 
to make it reor or persuasum mihi est. Compare iil. 28. When 
expressed by a Paul, who, according to 2 Cor. xi. 23, had been ἐν 
κόποις περισσοτέρως ἐν πληγαὺς ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως» 
ἐν ϑανάτοις πολλάκις, and who consequently was well acquainted with 
the παθήματα of a disciple, such a persuasion as this has a double 
weight. He expresses himself to the same effect, at 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
In the Talmudic Tr. Pirke Aboth, c. 4, § 17, we read, ‘* R. Jacob 
said: One hour’s refreshment in the world to come, is better than the 
whole of life on this side the grave.”’ Bernhard, de Convers. ad 
Cler. ὁ. 30: Non sunt condigne passiones hujus temporis ad prete- 
ritam culpam, que remittitur, ad presentem consolationis gratiam, 
que immittitur, ad futuram gloriam que promittitur nobis. 

πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν. The preposition πρός with an accusa- 
tive is comparative particle. Μέλλουσα ἀποχαλυφθῆναι. In joyful 
exultation the Apostle conceives its commencement at hand. Before 
the foundation of the world this glory was appointed for the disciples 
of the Lord, Matt. xxv. 34. Here upon earth, however, it is still 
hidden in God, Col. iii. 3, and will only be revealed beyond the 
grave, 1 John iii. 2. 

V. 19. The Apostle now paints the greatness of that glory. It 
occurs to his mind, how even the glorifying of the irrational creation 
is dependent upon that of Christians. ‘The development of this 
thought, he connects with a γὰρ, inasmuch as supposing the glorifica- 
tion of the faithful to reflect its splendour upon the inanimate creation, 
this infers that believers have to expect an unspeakably great mani- 
festation of divine grace in themselves. In this way did even 
Chrysostom state the connection: @appec τοίνυν ὑπὲς αὐτῆς» (τῆς μελ- 
λούσης δόξης), παρεσχεύασται yae ἤδη τοὺς σοὺς ἀναμένουσα πόνους. εἰ δὲ 
τὸ μέλλευν σε λυπεῖ, αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν εὐφραινέτω σε τούτο; τῷ YAE μεγάλη Ths 


* Mark how he, at the same time, depresses and raises the spirits of those 
engaged in the struggle. For when he shows that greater are the rewards 
than the toils, it is more an exhortation, whereby he prohibits us to be uplifted 
in mind, seeing we are overcome in the recompense of crowns which we re- 
ceive. 


256 CHAPTER VII. v. 19. 


εἶναι, καὶ ἀφξαστος; καὶ THY παφοῦσαν ὑπεξβαίνειν κατάστασιν, ἐκεῖ τετα- 
μίευταιυ....««ἐπαίρων δὲ καὶ ἑτέξως τὴν ἀχξοατὴν», καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως 
ξξογχοῦ τὸν λόγον, δύο κατασχευάζων διὰ τῶν λεχθήσεσθαυν μελλόντων, καὶ 
ὑπεξφονιάν τῶν παφόντων, καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν μελλόντων, καὺ TELTOV με- 
τὰ τούτων, μᾶλλον δὲ πρῶτον, τὸ δειξαν πὼς περισπούδαστον TH Θεῷ τὸ 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ἐστί, καὶ ἐν ὅσῃ τὴν φύσιν τὴν ἡμετέραν ἄγεν τιμῇ 
The whole of this section to the 24th verse is very variously under- 
stood by expositors, according as they interpret the word χτίσις. We 
may separate into two classes the manifold meanings which have 
been given to it. Standing as abstr. pro concr. for κτίσματα» it may 
be understood either of the rational or of the irrational creation. 
The first class of interpreters fall again into subdivisions. We pass 
by the dreams of those who, under κτίσις, will have the Angels, or 
the Spirits in the Stars understood, nay even dam and Eve, (see 
Pelag. ad ἢ. 1.) and shall only take into consideration their views, 
who think that by xz/ocs is meant either a portion of the human race, 
some say Christians in general, others heathen converts in par- 
ticular, or the human race at large, especially the heathen in contrast 
with Christians. The word signifies regenerated Christians, accord- 
ing to the opinion of Gregory the Great, of Lyra, Socinus, Limborch, 
Schoettgen and others. But even the usus loquendi refutes this as- 
sertion, inasmuch as without the addition χαυνήν Christians are never 
called χείσις, (Eph. ii. 10; James i. 18, prove nothing,) which de- 
signation indeed, if used absolutely, would have no meaning at all. 
It is further to be observed, that at verse 19, the υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ» are 
expressly distinguished from the xcvovs, and even supposing we were 
here to sustain the solution, which Augustine proposes, Quest. 
LXVII. viz. that by a Hebraism, instead of the pronoun being put, 
the noun is repeated, still this cannot at all be sustained at verse 21, 
where the αὐτή ἡ χτύσις, Is Once more opposed to the τέχνα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
The overeva2e. of verse 22, comes in confirmation, not to mention 
other grounds. 

That the heathen converts to Christianity are meant by χτίσις» is 
the supposition of Clericus and Noesselt, in which case the αὐτοί of 
verse 23 denotes Jewish Christians. ‘This hypothesis is founded 
upon the circumstance that m2, the creature, is an expression 
by which the Rabbins designate the heathen in particular. It may, 
accordingly, be very suitably applied to heathen converts. Now, 


* Be confident then, with respect to it, for it is already prepared and awaits 
your toils. If, however, you lament thatit is future, let this very circumstance 
give you joy. For just because it is something great and ineffable, and sur- 
passing the present state of things, is it there kept in custody And in 
another way, stirrmg up the listener, he even amplifies his discourse froin 
the creation, preparing to effect by what is to be said,a double object, disdain 
of things present, and desire of things to come. Along with this he has a 
third in view, or rather a primary one, which is to show how much the hu- 
man race is cared for by the Almighty, and in how great honour he holds our 
nature. 


CHAPTER vill. v. 19. 257 


even were we to admit that the appellation 7°02 was a customary one 
for the heathen, we should still require to consider the transference of 
it to Christians inadmissible. It was only in contrast with the Old 
Testament 'Theocracy, that the Jews applied to the heathen the 
names χτισίς and κόσμος. ‘To the place of the Old ‘Testament Theo- 
cracy, succeeded that of the New. Now, the heathen who became 
Christians, did thereby cease to stand opposed to the Theocracy. 
Accordingly, as an Apostle would hardly have called the heathen 
Christians xésuos, just as little could he have called them χτίσις. We 
leave other reasons untouched. 

On the other hand, there is much more to recommend the suppo- 
sition that χτίσις here designates the human race at large, in contrast 
with the regenerated Christian. ‘This meaning, viz. the animated 
rational creation, actually belongs to χτίσις, Mark xvi. 15. Col. 
i. 23. 1 Pet. ii. 13. Among the Rabbins, 7.72 means men, but 
especially the heathen. Now it might be said, that Paul contem- 
plating, from the Christian point of view, the disorder in all the rela- 
tions of society, the monstrous spiritual debasement and wretchedness 
of the Gentile world, supposes among the heathen a feeling of dis- 
gust, a sense of the nothingness of the human race (ματαιότης, φθορά); 
and that he has ascribed to them, along with that, an unconscious 
longing after a transformation of all things, a redemption. In the 
first place, however, even supposing such a dull feeling of disgust 
and sense of the nothingness of life, to have, in point of fact, spread 
at that time among the heathen, (according to Augustine, De civ. 
Dei, they complained of the world’s growing old,) it is much to be 
questioned whether Paul would have represented this as an uncon- 
scious longing after the Christian glorification, considering how 
much the feeling was destitute of a moral basis. Furthermore, the 
Apostle announces for this κτίσις, a participation in the glory awaiting 
Christians; to the Gentile κόσμος, however, as such, no part im the βασι- 
λεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ could be promised. In fine, according to this exposi- 
tion, the words ματαιότης and δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς. can only be applied 
forcibly to the heathen, whereas they are perfectly natural, provided 
we understand xzéocs to mean the irrational part of existence. ‘This 
explanation has been defended by Augustine, Prop. 53, Hammond, 
Lightfoot, Locke, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Ammon, Usteri and others. 

We now then proceed to the second class of expositions, according 
to which by xe/ovs, is understood the irrational creation, wherein 
some include the brutes, others do not. Here too we pass over 
several as altogether groundless, that of Heumann for instance, which 
was likewise adopted by Sadoletus, and which makes χτίσις signify 
the body of Christians one day to be renovated. ‘That the word 
does mean the whole inanimate creation (whether the stars, and 
whether the brutes are included, it is impossible to determine, although 
this may be supposed, at least in respect to the latter), may be de- 
monstrated both from the very words of Paul, and also from the 
tenor of the Jewish, as well as of the Christian creed. ‘The opinion 

33 


258 CHAPTER VIII. v. 19. 


may be inferred with a very high degree of probability from the 
words of Paul, partly because χτύσις standing absolutely, does usually 
mean the inanimate creation, partly seeing that αὐτὴ ἡ χτίσυς Seems 
to intimate a descending from the more to the less noble, partly be- 
cause we have afterwards, ver. 22, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις» and, in fine, partly 
because to the inanimate creation, the predicates ματάιϊότης and δολεία 
τῆς φθορὰς are perfectly applicable. It is furthermore to be observed, 
that the supposition of a future glorification of the visible world is not 
merely a thing which can be concluded abstractly as involved in Ju- 
daism and Christianity, but that the tenet may be established as having 
actually belonged to their systems of doctrine. (‘To the analogy of 
the religious tenets of the Jews upon the point in question, and to its 
importance for the exposition of Paul’s declaration, the attention was 
first directed by Lakemacher, Bibl. Bremensis, Classis vii. who did 
not, however, adduce the authorities.) 

The original account by Moses, Gen. iii. 17, 18, seems to contain 
an intimation that sin, which, in every case, brought along with it 
ϑάνατος, does also stand in causal connection with the enslaved state 
of nature. From this alone, it might be inferred that Paul expected 
the abolition of the ϑάνατος in inanimate nature as a consequence of 
the abolition of the ἁμαρτία and the Savaros in man. Est areana, 
says Clericus, quedam cognatio et consensus, quem habent cum 
homine res universe. In this case, there would be a gradation. ‘The 
Spirit of Christ, which, according to James i. 25, is ἃ νόμος ἐλευθε- 
ecas, and according to Paul, a νόμος τῆς ζωῆς, diffuses its sanctifying 
and emancipating influence, from the ἔσω ἀνθφωπος where it began to 
operate, outward, first upon the ϑνητὰ σώματα (ver. 11), and then 
universally over the inanimate creation. Highly beautiful is the re- 
mark of Chrysostom: Καθάπες γὰρ τιθήνη παιδίον τεξέφεσα βασιλικόν» 
ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐχεῦῖνου γινομένου τῆς πατρικῆς» καὶ ALTY συναπολαύει τῶν 
ἀγαδῶν, οὕτω χαὶ ἡ χτίσις.Ῥ It is this idea which is expressed in 
many prophetical descriptions of the period of the Messias (Is. xi. 5; 
Ixv. 25.) Such descriptions are neither to be interpreted altogether 
outwardly, nor yet altogether inwardly. Much more does the 
prophet combine the ideas by which both the external and the inter- 
nal glory of the Messias’ kingdom is disclosed, and delivers these in 
several suitable images, the idea of which, so far as it respects what 
is inward, passed into fulfilment at the appearance upon earth of the 
inward kingdom of God; and, in so far as respects what is outward, 
shall pass into fulfilment when, at Christ’s second coming, the inward 
kingdom of God shali be outwardly revealed. ‘The same is the case 
with what the Zend-Avesta, in like images, says respecting the glo- 
rification of the spiritual and material world at the end of time. 
(Zend-Avesta, Th. ii. 5. 307.) These Old Testament ideas were, at 


* Like as the nurse who has reared the child of a king, enjoys the benefit 


along with him, upon his succeeding to his paternal dominion;—so is it with 
the creation. 


CHAPTER Vill. v.19. ᾿ 259 


an after period, extended by the Jewish Theologians, and thence 
arose the dogma of the Ὁ)» win, the renovation of the world at the 
advent (the return) of the Messias. Abarb. on Is. liii. calls it wn 
wiin. So is it said in the book, Emek Hammelech, Bl. 121. Sp. 
3. ‘In the days of the Messias, the Blessed One shall renew the 
world, (O71 wim) and the place of hell itself shall be purged and 
consecrated.”” Now, in their tenet of the renovation of the world, 
the Rabbins likewise taught the glorification of the lifeless creation. 
To this effect is the passage from Bereschith Rabba, Bl. 11. Sp. 3, 
which we before quoted in an abridged form, at ch. v. ver. 14, “ΒΕ. 
Berachja said, in the name of R. Samuelis, Though all things were 
created perfect, they nevertheless became corrupt when the first man 
sinned, nor will they return to their right condition, until Pherez (the 
Messias) comes, as is written (Ruth iv. 18.) yr modin nox. ~=Here 
the word nit) is written plene with the waw, because there are six 
things (waw, as a number, denotes six,) which shall return to their 
primeval state, the beauty of man, his life, the length of his stature, 
the fruits of the earth, the fruits of the trees, and the lights of 
heaven.” R. Bechai in Schiilchan Orba, Bl. 9. Sp. 4. ‘In those 
days shall the whole creation be changed for the better, and return 
to her perfection and purity, as she was in the time of the first man, 
before he sinned.’’ Coarser delineations of this idea of the glorifi- 
cation of the world may be found in Corodi, Geschichte des Chili- 
asmus, B, I. 5. 368. Ejisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, Th. II. 
5. 826. 

The passage in Philo is analogous, where he describes how all 
nature ἀσθένειαν ἐνδέχεται and χάμνει, De Cherub. p. 123, and how 
ἐξημεφωθέντων τῶν κατὰ διάνοιαν καὶ τὰ Coa ἡμεφωθήσεταιν De prem. et 
pen. p. 924, where he adds: τὸτε xai σχοφρπίων γένη καὶ ὄφεων 
ἄπρακτον ἕξευ τὸ ἴον. In the sayings of Christ we find nothing about 
this glorifying of the inanimate creation. ‘True, that with reference 
to the period of the glorification of God’s inward kingdom, at the 
place where he figuratively applies to his second appearing certain 
phrases in common use among Jewish theologians, as referring to 
the Messias’ kingdom, he employs the word παλυγγενεσία, Matt. xix. 
28, which perfectly corresponds with the pyr win of the Rabbins, 
aecording to which the Syriac translator, at that passage, renders 
“new world.’’ In the Rabbinical use, however, that word included 
the whole extent of the renovation, which was to take place at the 
era of the Messias, and inasmuch as Christ had no occasion in the 
saying quoted, to limit the phrase, παλιγγενεσία would seem to have 
a meaning no less general than DY won. It may certainly be 
affirmed, however, that the name παλιγγενεσίαν like DY WIN, by no 
means excludes the glorification of the inanimate creation, as little as 
the perfectly analogous name ἀποκατάστασις πάντων, Acts iii. 21. The 
glorification of the visible creation is more precisely declared in Rev. 
xxi. 1, although we must there keep in view that it is a prophetical 


260 CHAPTER Vilt. v. 19. 


vision which is described; and with yet greater precision do we find 
the transformation of the material world mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 7— 
12, where we must doubtless hold, what Usteri says, p. 174, that 
the conception of a transference of the perfected βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
into the heavens is, properly speaking, modern, seeing that, according 
to Paul, and especially the Apocalypse, the seat of the kingdom of 
God is the earth, inasmuch as that likewise participates in the general 
renovation. Now this is moreover the view which has been adopted 
by the greatest number, and the most ancient of the expositors, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome ad Eph. iv. 8. les. xxx. 36, Au- 
gustine de civ. Dei, 1. xx. c. 14, 17, 18, Ambrose, Luther, Koppe 
and many others. See upon the point, as upon the whole section, 
the learned Dissertation of J. Marck, Exercit. xviii. in Sylloge Dis- 
sert. ad N. ‘T’. Rotterd. 1721. Bucer likewise has an admirable 
commentary upon this section. On the history of the exposition of 
the passage, compare Flatt, Vorlesungen, 8. 241. With his usual 
naiveté Luther (Simmtl. Werke, Altenb. Ausg. B. ix. p. 14, 15) 
thus speaks, ‘ God will not only make the earth, but also the heavens 
far fairer than they now are. The present world is his working 
clothes: hereafter he will put on an Easter and Whitsunday suit,” 
With respect to the How, nothing certainly can be determined. 
Here the beautiful saying of Bucer applies: Ista evangelizat tantum, 
non probat, modis enim omnibus humanum sensum superant. This 
much, however, we may maintain with Calvin, that in such a glori- 
fication, we are not to suppose the abolition of any of the inferior 
orders of being, but a purification which shall take place upon each, 
according to its own peculiar nature. (Among philosophers, com- 
pare the ideas upon the Fall and Recovery of Creation delivered by 
Francis Hemsterhuys, in his talented Dialogue, Alexis on sur l’Age 
d’or, in the Giuvres Philos. T. II.) 

Ἡ γὰρ ἀποχαραδοχία τῆς κτίσεως ἀπεχδ. instead of ἡ χτυσις ἀποχαρα- 
δοχᾶσα ἀπεχδ. There is in this description of Paul, an almost poeti- 
eal prosopopeia. It ought not, however, to occasion much surprise, 
when we consider, on the one hand, the lively feeling of the Apostle, 
and, on the other, how greatly the subject here called for it. As Old 
Testament analogies, we may compare Is, lv. 12. Ps. xeviii. Baruch 
ili. 84. Hab. ii. 11. Ez. xxxi. 15.. Hunnius: Declarat ipsasmet 
creaturas inanimatas, si sensu aliquo preditae forent, sueque vanita- 
tis sortem intelligerent, summo desiderio expetituras esse tempus 
illud. 

Several expositors take awoxapadox’a in an emphatic sense. Beza: 
Exerto capite expectat, (from the etymology of the word as com- 
pounded of xdpa and δοκέω,) Luther, Sehnliche erwartung, passion- 
ate expectation, Ernesti, Instit. Interp. N. T. P. I. Chap. 11. § 12,* 
cites this very explanation as an instance of false emphasis. So like- 


* See Binnreat Canrnet, Vol. I. p. 166—7. 


CHAPTER VIII. v. 20. 261 
wise Loesner and Krebs. Considering, however, that according to 
Chrysostom and Suidas, the Etymol. magnum and the usus loquendi, 
ἀποχαραδοχία may be emphatic, that the emphasis is here suitable, 
and that it has accordingly been expressed by the Syriac Interpreter, 
we may well regard it as amounting to, looking forward to, waiting 
for something. 

τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ @es. The word is descriptive, inas- 
much as Christians already possess that glory, though without its 
being visible. Itis the φανέρωσις ἐν S087, Col. ili. 4. 1 John in. 2. For 
the act of judgment consists in this, that the members of God’s king- 
dom, who here live under temptations from within and without, and 
divided and dispersed over the world, shall then be delivered from 
all strife, and become united in a close and visible fellowship of 
glory. 

V.20. Statement of the reason of this longing on the part of the 
inanimate creation. It lies in its ματαιότης. ‘This word many have 
taken up in a false sense. For inasmuch as, according to the analogy 
of the Hebrew 437, it denotes idolatry (comp. Acts xiv. 15), it has 
been supposed, that Paul here means to state how the creatures were 
compelled to submit to be by man abused to all kinds of sinful pur- 
poses, more particularly to idolatrous adoration. So even Tertullian, 
De corona Militis, 6. vi., and so likewise Luther, Marck, Baumgarten 
and others. But that this application is incorrect, we perceive from 
even the explanatory δουλεία τῆς p00eas, 50 that Erasmus very perti- 
nently remarks: Ματαιότης sonat frustratio, quod creatura interim non 
assequatur, quod utcunque contendit efficere. Verbi causa, dum aliud 
ex alio propagans, individuis vicissim cadentibus ac renascentibus 
speciem tuetur ne intercidat, meditatur immortalitatem quandam sed 
frustra. Chrysostom likewise remarks, Gen. iv. 1, in Nicetae Cat. 
in Octateuchum, that the propagation of the human race was only 
introduced after the Fall, as an indemnification for the loss of the 
immortality possessed before. Theodoret: Ματαιότητα καλεῖ τὴν 
φθορὰν...«ἔπευδή περ Tov ὅλων 6 ποιητὴς προεώρα Ts’ Αδὰμ τὴν παξάδασιν, 
καὶ τὴν ἐπενεχθησομένην αὐτῷ τοῦ ϑανάτον ψῆφον. οὐ γὰρ ἣν εἰκὸς» δδὲ δί- 
XALOY, TH μὲν Ov αὐτὸν γεγεννημένα μεταλαχεὶν ἀφθαφσίας, αὐτὸν δὲ; οὗ χάξιν 
ταῦτα ἐπεποὶητο, SUNTOY εἴναυ καὶ παϑητόν. ἢ Philo, De Mundi opif. p. 33, 
adduces as the cause of the Fall of Nature, that if she had continued 
in her plenitude, fallen man would have sunk into haughty indolenee. 
A proud heathen, on the contrary, who was unable to account for the 
δουλεία, and who yet had not modesty enough to believe in ‘a secret 
wisdom,” dared to utter, as he contemplated the deterioration of 


* He calls corruption, vanity; inasmuch as the Maker of the universe fore- 
saw the transgression of Adam, and the sentence of death that was to be 
passed upon him. For it was neither right nor just that the things which 
were made for him should obtain incorruption, but that he for whose sake 
they were made, should be subject to death and suffering. 


262 CHAPTER VIIt. v. 20, 21. 


nature, the following bold words, Lucr. De Natura Rerum, 1. v. ver. 
196. 


Quod si jam rerum ignorem primordia, que sint, 
Hoc tamen ex ipsis cceli rationibus ausim 
Confirmare, aliisque ex rebus reddere multis, 
Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paraiam 

Naturam rerum, tanta stat preedita culpa. 


To these words, Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 1. I. c. 20, gives but a feeble 
echo 

οὐχ ἑκοῦσα. Bucer: Cum a corruptione natura res omnes abhorre- 
ant. ‘There is nothing but seeks to fulfil, and then to rest in, its idea, 
and hence to be striving after its idea, in a course of continual rise 
and downfall is contrary to the nature of the creature. 

διὼ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα. Hammond and Locke, who understand ματαιό- 
τῆς to mean chiefly idolatry, contend that the ὃ ὑποτάξας is Satan. It 
would be still more sensible with Jac. Capellus to suppose Adam. It 
is, however, most natural of all to think of the Lord of the whole cre- 
ation, of God. Gen. iii. 17. 

V.21. Statement of the condition under which the creation was 
subjected to the principle of decay. ‘The ὅτι may stand either αὐτιο- 
λογικῶς aS is held by most, and among these, by Luther, or objective, 
as it is taken by Baumgarten, Koppe, De Wette and others. The 
latter is the preferable way, ‘‘in hope—that....’? The αὐτὴ pre- 
fixed to χτίσις forms a climax. Chrysostom: Ti ἐστε καὶ αὐτὴ; 
οὐχὶ ob μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ σβ ote xatadeégeeov.* Alberti and Vene- 
ma, would forcibly construe the ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι with ἐπεκδέχεταν ver. 19, 
so as to make ver. 20, parenthetical. 

δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς. Compare the analogous expression, 2 Peter il. 
19. ‘The expositors who understood ματαίοτης to signify man’s 
abuse of nature, understand it here likewise in the same sense, 
Luther on Gal. iii. Calov and others. Gerhard (Loci Theol. Tom. 
IV.§ 55) takes φθοξὰ as directly synonymous with ἄνθρωπος φθαρτός. In 
Platonic phraseology we should here say: As man will attain to the 
ὄν, so must also the φαινόμενον of nature regain its image in the ov. 

εἰς τὴν ἐλευθεξίαν τῆς δόξης. ‘The εἰς is by Chrysostom taken un- 
grammatically, as equivalent to διά governing the accusative, on ac- 
count of...., and by Grotius and Carpzov, with an equal violation of 
grammar, in the sense of in; as if it were ἐν, in the time of....Rather, 
however, does the εἰς denote the state to which nature will attain. 
The state of ἐλευθερία for the children of God, will be that in which, 
consistently with the nature of their being, they shall feel themselves 
to be blessed in God alone; it will consequently be that for which 
they were destined, and wherein no disturbing causes, such as sin, ’ 
evil or death shall interrupt their life. ‘The genitive δόξης», according 


* What means the Creature itself?—Not only thou, but that which is be- 
neath thee. 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 22, 23. 263 


to the Hebrew idiom, stands for the adjective, the glorious liberty. 
Let us here add Calvin’s annotation: Non intelligit consortes ejus- 
dem glorie fore creaturas cum filiis Dei, sed suo modo melioris sta- 
tus fore socias. The creatures will then fill up thezr idea. 

V.22. Summary of what has just been said. ‘The assurance 
expressed by oidauev shows, as Bucer justly remarks, that the Jew- 
ish Christians, as having once been Jews, and the heathen Christians 
whom they instructed, were firmly persuaded of such a close connec- 
tion of the inanimate creation with man. 

συστενάζει χαὶ συνωδίνει. ‘The σύν Grotius here refers to the crea- 
tures themselves, they groan altogether. ‘The Syriac, Lésner, 
Michaelis and others will have it to be destituteof meaning. It is 
more natural, however, to refer it to the concord in the fates of nature 
and of man. So C£cumenius, Ambrose and others. ‘The word 
&divery Sometimes meaning, in a general way, fo feel pain, and some- 
times more specifically applied to the pains of parturition, has cer- 
tainly this latter special signification here, considering that the fruit 
of these pains is to be the condition of imperishableness arising out 
of the perishable. Perhaps, however, there is involved an allusion 
to the period preceding the age of the Messias, which Jewish theo- 
iogians distinguished by the name won “Yan, and which, in the 
New Testament, is likewise termed ὠδῖνες. See Schoettgen, Hore 
Talmud. T. II. p. 511. 

"Axec cov νῦν. Calvin: Si tot seculis duraruntin suo gemitu Crea- 
ture, quam inexcusabilis erit nostra mollities vel ignavia, si in brevi 
umbratilis vite curriculo deficimus. 

V.23. The longing after glorification is not merely a groaning on the 
part of nature, it is the same likewise on ours, notwithstanding that we 
have already the commencementof such a state within us. As a con- 
firmation of the blessedness which awaits the Christian, Paul had 
adduced the desire on the part of nature. Having mentioned its 
groaning, he finds himself led to the acknowledgment, that the sub- 
ject of redemption must likewise sigh after glory. ‘This accordingly 
opens up to him an opportunity of speaking upon the relation betwixt 
the sonship ascribed in faith to the Christian and the vision of it 
hereafter. ‘The transition, from the former to the present verse, 
ought consequently not to be progressive and ascending, as itis here, 
but one strictly opposite. ‘That ascending, however, is brought 
about by its being casually connected with στενάζει. 

To οὐ μόνον δὲ, we have to conceive an αὐτὴ στενάζευ supplied. 

ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ THY ἀπαφχὴν Tov πνεύματος ἔχοντες. On this passage, 
the very learned treatise in Keil is to be consulted, Οραδο. ‘I’. I. p. 
194. By the αὐτοὶ some imagine that Paul only is meant, who 
speaks of himself, they say, in the plural. So Koppe. Others, as 
Cicumenius, Bucer, Melancthon and Grotius, hold that the Apostles 
generally, are intended; while most, and that most appositely, refer 
the word to all πνευματικοί, seeing that it holds true of all such that 
they have received the awagyz. ‘The Apostles, in their humility, 


264 CHAPTER VIII. V. 23. 


uniformly place themselves, as Christians, upon a level with all the 
rest. Calvin: Accipio de universis fidelibus, qui in hoe mundo 
guttulis duntaxat Spiritus adspersi. Well also speaks Gcumenius, 
and after him Clarius, who yet seems to give prominence to the 
miraculous powers vouchsafed to the Apostles: ‘Tanto magis inge- 
miscimus nos, quanto nos avidiores ille gustus facit, nam si primitiz 
spiritus tam ingentes sunt ut miracula fiant ex sola umbra, qualis erit 
ipsa perfectio ac plenitudo? Doubiless the word ἀπασχὴ is here quite 
appositely used by the Apostle, to denote that even here the Chris- 
tian bears within him, his glory begun. Hence it was not only in- 
correct, but even unnecessary, for Keuchen to try to show, that 
ἀπαρχὴ signifies a gift, which would rob the meaning of all its 
beauty. ‘he inward experiences of the Christian, even in this life, 
give him a certainty with respect to his glorification hereafter. Hence 
the term Earnest, applied to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 2 Cor. i. 223 v. 5. 
Eph. i. 14. 

καὶ ἡμεὺς αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν. It is first to be inquired, whe- 
ther ἡμεῖς αὐτοί is again a heightening or merely a resumption of 
αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαξχὴς τοῦ Πνεύματον ἔχοντες. In the former case, were 
that αὐτοὶ to denote Christians in general, here it might mean Paul 
himself or the Apostles. ‘To Paul it is referred by Turretin, Koppe 
and others; to the Apostles, by Grotius, Lakemacher and others. 
Indisputably, however, it is far better to suppose an epanalepsis, for, 
in the first place, such a climax as is supposed, would elevate the 
Apostles too far above all other Christians, and that in a point in 
respect of which they do not distinguish themselves. For we know 
that precisely in regard of their inward misery and struggles on the 
one hand, and of their inward consolations upon the other, they stood 
on a level with the other disciples of the Savionr. Even Paul must 
needs be satisfied with the grace vouchsafed to him. Moreover, we 
can here very well explain the epanalepsis, it having a peculiar em- 
phasis. Even the Syriac interpreter adopts it, and after him Eras- 
mus, Luther, Beza and many others. Correct is the observation of 
Wolf: Gemitus ille non est doloris et molestie, nec etiam imipa- 
tientiz, multo minus murmuris adversus Deum, sed desiderii et 
vehementissimi affectus ex dilata spe. ‘The ἐν ἑαυτοῖς descriptively 
marks how the Christian bears this holy desire in the recesses of his 
breast, and only reveals it to God. Hence it never can degenerate 
into carnal impatience. The longer too that the true Christian, 
amidst all his temptations from without and within, quietly nourishes 
the flame of desire after heavenly freedom, the more refined does it 
become, so that, when after along life of struggles, he obtains a look 
into eternity, and beholds the heavenly Canaan at hand, there re- 
mains one single and sacred longing, purified from every other pas- 
sion, which allures him over—it is the love of Christ himself. 

υἱοθεσίαν ἀπτίεκδεχόμενοι. It was formerly said that Christians had 
already received the υἱοθεσία. Itis the same with this, however, as 
with all the spiritual good things of believers; the δικαίωμα», the ζωὴ, 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 23, 24. 265 


the participation in the βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ, are to them at present, 
and yet likewise a future something. It is offered objectively, the 
subjective realization is a gradual process. Chrysostom: Νὺν μὲν yae 
ἐν ἀδήλῳ τὼ ἡμέτεξα ἕστηκεν; ἕως ἐσχάτης ἀναπνοῆς. 

τὴν ἀπιολύτεωσιν τοὺ σώματος ἡμῶν. ‘Thisis an apposition to υἱοθεσία, 
showing a substantial consequence resulting from the attainment of 
our childship. Far-fetched are the explanations of σῶμα given by 
Ambrose, who will have it mean the Christian Church, and by Bol- 
tens, who takes it periphrastically, in the sense of person. ‘The 
only question is, whether the genitive be gen. subjecti or gen. objectt, 
whether it be ὦ deliverance from our body, or an elevation of the 
body above the frailty which cleaves to it. The former is supposed 
by Erasmus, Clericus, Heumann and others. The latter by Chry- 
sostom, Theodoret and Grotius. ‘This is to be preferred, for accord- 
ing to the doctrine which Paul teaches with respect to the resurrec- 
tion, not a word is said of the annihilation of our present body, but 
solely of its glorification. At 2 Cor. v. 4, he says: ob ϑέλομεν éxdv- 
casbat, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπενδύσασθαι. We have also to compare the 10th verse 
of the present chapter, where, in the same way, it is said, that the 
spirit is the first to feel the higher element; that has not as yet ex- 
tended to the body its transforming power. The following senti- 
ment of Augustine, De doctr. Chr. 1. 1. ὁ. 24, very appositely illus- 
trates the exposition which we have embraced: Quod nonnulli dicunt, 
malle se omnino esse sine corpore, omnino falluntur. Mon enim 
corpus suum sed corruptiones ejus et pondus oderunt. ‘The first 
exposition may likewise, however, be retained; but, in that case, we 
require to suppose, that it is the σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας which is meant, 
the σῶμα in as far as it is tyrannized over by the φεόνημα τῆς cagxos. 


PARP hv: 


ALTHOUGH THE EVERLASTING GLORY OF CHRISTIANS BE FOR THE 
PRESENT CONCEALED, IT IS NOT, HOWEVER, ON THAT ACCOUNT THE 
LESS CERTAIN. v. 24—39. 


V.24. Paul shows that it is also an established appointment in 
the economy of salvation, that Christians do not at once experience 
the consequences of redemption. Objectively, perfect salvation from 
the dmaeria and ϑάνατος is offered to their faith. It is only in a gra- 
dual manner, however, that, by the appropriation of it, on their parts, 
it becomes their subjective property. Accordingly, just as at ver. 


* For now what is ours is concealed until the last breath we draw. 


34 


266 CHAPTER VIII. v. 24, 25, 26. 


23, Paul represented the υἱοθεσία to be something future, (also chap. 
xiii. 11,) so likewise does he here represent σωτηξία, which is no 
less something present. In 1 Peter i. 5, we read, Σωτηξία ἑτοίμη 
ἀποχαλυφθῆναν ἐν xe ἐσχάτῳ. The dat. τῇ ἐλπύδιυ, is not to be 
conceived, as if the tamds were the deyavov ληπτικὸν Of the σωτηξία. 
Everywhere Paul represents that to be faith. ‘The dative stands 
here by itself, as it does in classical authors, (Matthie § 547,) for ἐπί 
governing the dat. which may be rendered upon hope, by means of 
hope. Chrysostom very appositely remarks on Heb. xi. 1, with 
respect to the relation of the ἐλπίς to the ges: ᾿Επειδὴ yde τὰ ἐν 
ἐχπίδι ἀνυπόςατα εἶναν Boxer, ἡ MvorLs ὑπόστασιν αὐτοὺς χαξιζεταυν 
μᾶλλον δὲ; οὐ χαρίζεται, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτή ἐστιν οὐσία αὐτῶν. Ἐ 

ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη. Per met. abstr. pro concr. ἐλπίς stands here in 
place of τὸ ἐλπίδόμενον, as at Col. i. 5, 2. Thess. ii. 16. Calvin: Si 
enim vita invisibilis, mortem oportet habere pre oculis, si invisibilis 
gloria, ergo prasens ignominia, 

Τί χαὶ ἐλπίζει. The τύ here means why. The xa: may be a pleonasm, 
which, in certain interrogatory phrases, has an elegance, (in genuine 
Greek it has sometimes, however, a peculiar meaning. See Herm. 
zu Viger. § 837.) Or it may signify besides. 

V. 25. What the Apostle means to say is this: In the very mode 
of our redemption it is involved that we must patiently wait for its 
completion. ‘Tit. 11. 12. 

V. 26. This holy patience, Paul means to say, finds a support in 
the Holy Spirit. He, by a divine movement within us, draws forth 
sighs, which, when unbosomed before God, become a fountain of 
heavenly consolation. 

ὡσαύτως. Grotius and Koppe, violating the rules of the language, 
make this, preterea, which, however, it never signifies directly. If 
we urge its proper meaning, we may suppose a twofold reference. 
Either with Pelagius: Sec. hane spem adjuvat ut non terrena sed ce- 
lestia postulemus; or, just as for the present we know the kingdom 
of glory not by vision, and, consequently know it but darkly, so also 
is the supplication of the Spirit, something dark and undefined. The 
simplest way is to suppose that the reference is indefinite. It ap- 
pears properly to be the same which lies in συναντιλαμβάνεται, and 
the idea is then as follows: While-we in our assaults labour to keep 
ourselves erect, by the ὑπομονὴ, which is the offspring of the wires 
ἐλπίζουσα, the Holy Spirit comes to our aid in this matter, and seeks 
likewise to uphold us. So Erasmus, Hunnius and others. 

τὸ Πνεῦμα. ‘That mysterious undulation of the heart towards God, 
which, in the hour of temptation, amidst the multitude of the thoughts 
within us, yields us heavenly comfort, is a manifestation of God in 
our breasts. Compare the beautiful words of the great Fenelon in 


* For seeing that things in hope appear to be unsubstantial, faith imparts 
substance to them, or rather does not impart it, but is itself their substance. 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 26. 267 


the Essay: Que l’Esprit de Dieu enseigne en dedans. Ciuvres, 
Paris, 1792. T’. VIII. p. 1617, where, amidst more of the kind, it 
is justly said: l’Esprit de Dieu est l’Ame de notre (des Chretiens) 
aime. In a manner altogether forced, Sadoletus and Michaelis will 
have the human mind striving against the lusts, to be understood by 
πνεῦμα. Melancthon: Loquitur autem Paulus de vera et ingenti lucta, 
non de frigidis et otiosis cogitationibus. Ideo hee a securis non pos- 
sunt intelligi, sed singuli pro suo modo in suis tentationibus aliqua 
ex parte experiri debebant in invocatione vim hujus consolationis. 

συναντιλαμβάνεται ταὶς ἀσθενείαις. ‘The σύν merely strengthens the 
idea of helping. The plural éo6éveca. enforces the idea of the singu- 
lar, and must not, as is done by Chrysostom, Grotius and others, be 
expounded to mean outward sufferings. Just as little will it bear 
to be applied, after Origen, Cocceius and others, to our ignorance of 
what to pray for. It refers to the timidity of our soul. Hunnius: 
Perficit Spiritus Sanctus in nostra imbecillitate virtutem. 

Τὸ yae τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ Se. ‘The τό serves to introduce the 
following words as the defined object. Luke ix. 46. Erasmus: 
Tantum abest ut ipsi nobis possimus esse presidio, ut nesciamus 
quibus presidiis sit opus. Augustine, Prop. 54: Duas ob res, (nes- 
cimus quid sit orandum,) quod et illud quod futurum speramus et 
quo tendimus nondum apparet, et in hae ipsa vita, possunt nobis 
prospera videri que adversa sunt, et adversa que prospera. For 
this reason vain was the prayer of Paul for the removal of the thorn 
in the flesh, vain that of Moses to behold Canaan, and vain Abra- 
ham’s that Sodom might be saved.” 

The χαθὸ Sec some construe very inappropriately with οὐχ οὐδαμεν» 
non satis scimus, by which the sense is enfeebled. 

ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπεξεντυγχάνει. ‘Totally contrary to the con- 
nection is the view of Chrysostom, Clarius and others, that St, Paul 
here speaks of a peculiar χάξισμα vouchsafed to the first Christians, 
and which consisted in the circumstance of a single individual, in a 
preternatural way, praying for the whole congregation. Correctly 
Calvin: Opportune anxiis piorum desideriis preces attexuit, quia 
non ideo zrumnis eos Deus afiligit, ut intus ceecum dolorem vorent, 
sed ut se exonerent precando atque ita fidem suam exerceant. 

ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπέρ τινος, to plead one’s cause, which idea is, by the 
compounding with ize, still more enforced. ‘The sort of interces- 
sion which, in doctrinal systems, is called ἔντευξις» is not here meant. 
The supplication of the Spirit is doubtless supplication on the part of 
man, which, however, is occasioned and excited by the inward stir- 
ring up of the Spirit. Augustine, Tract. VI. in Joh. § 2: Non Spi- 
ritus Sanctus in semet ipso apud semet ipsum in illa trinitate gemit, 
sed in nobis gemit quia gemere nos facit. Nec parva res est quod 
Spiritus Sanctus nos docet gemere, insinuat enim nobis quia (quod) 
peregrinamur, et docet nos in patriam suspirare, et in ipso desiderio 
gemimus, Theodoret, ὑπὸ yae τῆς χάξιτος διεγευξόμενοι xataveTToucda, 


268 CHAPTER VII. v. 26, 27. 


πυδφσευόμενου προθυμότεξον περοσευχόμεθα. ἡ St. Martin, L’>homme de 
desir, Lyon. 1790, p. 280. ‘As the mother does to the child, so 
does the Holy Spirit repeat before us the supplications, which we 
must seek to lisp after him.” 

στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτους May, in an improper sense, be understood of 
inward sighs, whose meaning cannot be resolved into distinct speech, 
like dvexaaanros, 1 Peter i. 8, and usually ἀῤῥητος. So Calvin, Mi- 
chaelis and others. The latter says, ‘* with sighs in whose stead we 
ean find no words.”’ 2 Cor. xii. 14, might then be compared: ἄῤῥητα 
ῥήματα; ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. It may also, however, be equiva- 
lent to ἀῤῥητος in the narrower sense, ‘* Sighs, which do not even 
escape from the breast, but which spring up, and again perish within 
us.’’ Such is the common signification of the word ἀλάλητος: and 
in the same sense, is ἐν ἑαυτοὺς also used at ver. 23. These silent 
prayers, like silent grief itself, are wont to be the deepest. ‘The 
book Sohar observes, on Ps. xviii. 16, ‘*' These are words which 
cannot be uttered, and thoughts which the mouth cannot express, 
Comp. Is. xxxvill. 14. 1Sam.i.13. So Beza, Grotius, Lambertus 
Bos and many others. ‘The Apostle is here thinking of those states 
of the inward life, in which the sense of happiness and fellowship with 
the Saviour has lost its liveliness, anda man has no resource but to rest 
his faith upon the objective announcement of salvation. In such eir- 
cumstances a war arises within, during which al] that the Christian 
experiences is but sighs, which secretly spring up and soon again 
secretly perish in the breast. Of such states the mystical writers of 
the Catholic church frequently speak. Molinos, Guida Spirituale, 
Venetia, 1785, |. I. c. 8. Chiaro sta, que ὃ gran martirio, e non 
pieciol dono di Dio, ritrovandosi l’anima priva de’ sensibili gusti, ehe 
haveva, il caminar colla sola santa fede per i calignosi e deserti sen- 
tieri della perfettione, alla quale perd non puo arrivarsi, che per 
questo penoso se ben sicuro mezzo. Onde procura di star constante, 
e non retornare in dietro, benche ti manchi nell’ oratione il discorso, 
credi allora con fermezza, taci con quiete e persevera con patienza! 

V. 27. ‘That deep and heavenly longing which awakens the 
speechless sigh in the breast of the tempted, is not to man himself a 
distinct object of apprehension. Arising, however, as it does from 
the divine Spirit within us, God himself knows it better than we. 
Ambrose: Deo loquitur cum nobis tacere videatur, quia et videt cum 
non videatur. 

ὃ δὲ ἐξευνῶν τὰς xaedvas. A common circumlocution for God, Ps 
vii. 9; Jer. xi. 20, to which an apposite special application is here 
given. 

olde τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ mverparos. ‘That in those moments when the 
soul turns with deepest ardour to its Original, it is not that which is 
human in man, that rises Godward, but the Divine Spirit in the hu- 


* Stirred up by grace we feel compunction, and when inflamed to greater 
ardour, we pray. 


CHAPTER VIII. ¥. 27. 269 


man breast which seeks to meet God, the profound thinkers of every 
clime have been aware. Dschelaleddin in the Methnewi (Cod. MS. 
Bibl. reg. Ber. T. ILL. p. 146) thus sings of a Mahometan saint, Da- 
kuki: 


O never think a prayer like this like other prayer; for know, 

It is not mortal man, but God, from whom the accents flow. 
Behold God prays! the lowly saint stands deep abased the while; 
And God who gave the humbled mind upon his prayers will smile. 


ὅτι κατὰ Θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει. The ὅτι gives the reason why God un- 
derstands the holy Spirit in the heart of man. The κατὰ Θεὸν is by 
some, as Cocceius, construed with the verb, in which case xara would 
be equivalent to πεὸς. But even were there no grammatical objection 
to this, it is difficult to understand how the proposition here can pos- 
sibly be a confirmation of the preceding. Origen and Ambrose trans- 
late: ‘*As, according to his divine nature, pertains to him.’’ ‘The 
former says: ‘‘ If we men are often incapable of expressing what our 
own spirit inwardly desires, how much less will that be intelligible 
to us, which the Spirit of God in our hearts addresses to God!’ ‘This 
interpretation would be profound as well as apposite. Only in de- 
fiance of all the laws of language, however, can xard Θεόν be trans- 
lated, agreeably to his Divinity. It would be much more allowable 
to translate it, 2n the way that pertains to God, which translation 
would admit of a similar meaning. Betwixt this explanation and 
that which we shall immediately give, Bengel wavers. He says, 
what may be reconciled with both: Spiritus Sanctus intelligit stilum 
curie celestis, patri acceptum. More commendation, however, is 
due to the common interpretation, which, following the Syriac and 
Chrysostom, translates, according to the will of God. ‘This meaning 
of χατὰ Θεόν is likewise usual among profane authors: See Wetstein. 
We might then compare the praying xara τό ϑέλημα Θεοῦ of 1 John 
v.14. The xara Θεὸν, among classical authors, denotes, by divine 
appointment, which is a kindred signification. See Euthydemus, 
ed. Heind. p. 405. 

“Ayov are here the Disciples of Christ; See c.i.'7. When the 
Christian, in the hours of his inward agony, has nothing in his breast 
but speechless sighs which rise up, and again expire the import of 
these divine heavings of the heart, is usually the self emptying sur- 
render of a love melting away in deepest humility. Whatever a love 
thus divinely self-denying wills, the accomplishment of the volition 
is vouchsafed along with it. God understands and answers such 
sighings of love breathed forth from the divine Spirit, for they already 
contain within themselves heavenly consolation and tranquillity. 
What the Mystic wants is an objective ground for his faith and affec- 
tion, and it is this which forms the essential distinction betwixt him 
and the Christian. Even the Mystic, however, might make the ex- 
perience we allude to, on the ground of his subjective faith, We 
have a memorable and sublime evidence of this in the following pas- 


270 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 27, 28. 


sage from the Methnewi of Dschelaleddin (Cod. M. S. Bibl. Reg. 
Ber. J. II. p. 13.) 


Allah! was all night long the cry of one oppressed with care. 

Till softened was his heart, and sweet became his lips with prayer. 
Then near the subtle tempter stole, and spake, Fond babbler, cease, 
For not one, Here am I, has God ere sent to give thee peace. 

With sorrow sank the suppliant’s heart, and all his senses fled, 
But, lo! at midnight, Chiser* came, and gently spake and said, 
What ails thee now, my child, and whence art thou afraid to pray, 
And why thy former love dost thou repent, declare and say. 

Ah! cries he, Never once to me spoke God, Here am JI, son. 

Cast off, methinks I am, and warned far from his gracious throne. 
To whom Elias, Hear, my son, the word from God I bear, 

Go tell—he said—yon mourner sunk in sorrow and despair. 

Each Lord appear thy lips pronounce contains my Here am J, 

A special messenger I send beneath thine every sigh. 

Thy love is but a girdle of the love I bear to thee, 

And sleeping in thy Come, O Lord, there lies, Here, Son, from me. 


V. 28. The Apostle had stated how Christians are enabled to bear 
up under all their afflictions, by having the certainty of everlasting 
glory, and how, in the hardest pressure of these, an inward invigo- 
ration through the Divine Spirit is never denied them. Even apart 
from this, however, he now avers, that all the occurrences of life are, 
under the Divine governance, made means of the Christian’s advance- 
ment, inasmuch as God knows how to order every thing in such a 
way, as to issue in the welfare of their souls. Melancthon: Nulla 
philosophia et nulla humana sapientia videre potest, quare hee in- 
firma natura humana istis ingentibus calamitatibus onerata est. Ratio 
disputat utrum casu accidant. Lex Dei clamitat esse peenas peccati 
et signa ire Dei. At Evangelium proponit nobis filium Dei, hine 
testatur, non casu sed certo consilio Dei nos subjectos esse afflictio- 
nibus, non ut pereamus sed ut exerceamur. Chrysostom: αὐτοὺς 
τοὺς δεινοὺς xEYEnTaL εἰς τὴν τῶν ἐπιβουλενομένων ἐνδοχίμησιν; ὅπερ πολὺ 
μειξζόν ἔστι Tov κωλῦσαι ἐπελθεῖν τὰ δεινὰ.Ἷ 

πάντα cuveeyeee The πάντα must be restricted to the antecedent 
subject, and so refers to the afflictions and events of life. Augustine, 
De Corrept. et gratia, endeavours to show how, even the sin of be- 
lievers, is, by the grace of God, made subservient to their good, an 
assertion which, although not directly, is still relatively, ὃ, 6. txBazc- 
χῶς correct; but it is not deducible from this passage. Συνεῤγεῖν εἰς 
rv, Lo work together for something. The σὺν is not insignificant, 
but intimates how the affectionate heart is the true cause of the work- 
ing of salvation, while the events of life are but occasional causes. 
To the man who is filled with enmity to God, every affliction isa 


* Name of Elias, whom the Easterns describe as-the counsellor of men. 

+ He employs adversity itself in advancing the glory of those who are be- 
set with snares, which is much greater than it would be to hinder adversity 
from coming. 


CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 28. 271 


new incentive to his grudge, while in him who has made a filial sur- 
render,of himself to the Divine Being, humility and love strengthen 
amidst affliction, as fire does in the storm. ‘ Does the enemy draw 
t . - . 

the sword,” says Augustine, in his Sententiz, “ we lay hold of pa- 
tience. Does he take recourse to reproach and derision, we practice 
benevolence and love.”? Yes, as in the case of the individual, suf- 
ferings are like inundations of the Nile, leaving the earth more fertile 
than before, so is it with the church of Christ at large, which 
flourishes best under hardships. Plures eflicimur, says ‘Tertullian 
in his Apolog. quoties a vobis metimur. Semen est Sanguis Chris- 
tianorum. Conf. Cyprianus, Sermo V. De lapsis. 

τοῖς κατὰ ποόθεσιν κλητοὶς οὖσιν. ‘The Apostle subjoins one other 
ground, why the regenerate may be of good cheer amidst all assaults, 
viz. that the fact of their being Christians is the fulfilment of a decree 
made by God, before the foundation of the world. His meaning 
accordingly is, that just as indestructible as is the divine knowledge, 
as little ean that which God has once known and determined upon, 
fail to fulfil its destination. From this the Apostle proceeds to deduce 
as an inference, that God can never prove unfaithful to his purpose, 
and by affliction and hardship, lay an obstacle in the Christian’s 
way. Much more, supposing the believer himself faithful, may the 
sufferings that befal him, be by God’s conduct, made the means of 
promoting his salvation. Even by the statement of this, which is 
obviously Paul’s design, we may perceive how wide it must lie from 
his purpose, to speak of an absolute election. It may clearly be dis- 
covered from ver. 35—89, that his sole object is to show, that God’s 
love is by no means rendered doubtful by the sufferings, which are 
allotted to us. ‘The argumentation of the Apostle in this section, 
rests principally upon the fact, that even before the creation of the 
world, God had formed the purpose of calling believers, of destining 
them to fellowship with Christ, of justifying and glorifying them. 
All this had been already, from all eternity, determined on God’s 
part, and in God, and consequently fulfilled. This aspect of the re- 
demption, and of the relation of believers to it, is frequently expressed 
by the Apostle, Eph. i. 5,11. 2 Tim. i. 9. 2 Thess. ii. 13. It 
was mainly pondering such passages as these, that called forth among 
Christians the question, which has occupied men in every age, viz. 
How God’s foreknowledge stands related to man’s freedom, and 
whether the former does not do away the latter, as soon as it is sup- 
posed that God foreknows with absolute certainty all that comes to 
pass. Even in his day, Cicero treated this question, De divin. 1. 11. 
6. 5—7, and rather inclines to deny God the prescience of the free 
actions of man. So likewise Socinus, Prelect. Theol. c.8—11. On 
the contrary, Augustine, speaking from the plenitude of a sense of 
the Deity, De Civit. Dei, 1. 5, 6. 9, says: Multo tolerabiliores sunt, 
qui vel siderea fata constituunt, quam iste qui tollit Dei prascientiam 
futurorum. ‘The answer in which modern theologians, since the 
days of Kant, rejoice, is to be found both in Augustine and Boethius, 


272 CHAPTER VIII. V. 28. 


viz. That the transference of the idea of time to the Divine intuition, 
is anthropopathic; that in the divine knowledge, there is neither a 
fore nor an after, but that all must be as an eternal at once: Bethius, 
De consol. phil. 1. 5, pr. 6: Scientia Dei omnem temporis supergressa 
motionem, in sue manet simplicitate presenti, infinitaque preteriti 
ac futuri spatia complectens, omnia quasi jam gerantur in sua sim- 
plici cognitione considerat. Itaque si prescientiam pensare velis, 
qua cuncta dignoscit, non esse prescientiam, quasi futuri, sed scien- 
tiam nunquam deficientis instantiz, rectius estimabis. Unde non 
prezvidentia, sed providentia potius dicitur, quod porro ab rebus in- 
fimis constituta, quasi ab excelso rerum cacumine cuncta prospiciat. 
Doubtless, however, this evasion of the difficulty can satisfy those 
only who bring themselves to regard time, as a mere semblance, and 
not at all those, by whom that is denied. (Ch. G. Schmid, Rel. und 
Theol. 1 B. s. 47. and the excellent work of Bockshammer, Die 
Freiheit des menschlichen Willens, s. 83.) Much more ought the 
question to be looked at from quite a different point of view. Thus. 
As the prescience of good,—of rational freedom,—is considered 
generally exempt from the difficulty in question, seeing that a ra- 
tional freedom is agreeable to a rule, the difficulty attaches solely to 
the prescience of arbitrary and unruled volition, to whose nature it 
belongs, that it cannot beforehand be known as necessary. ‘The 
whole inquiry, accordingly, has nothing else to take into view, but 
mere wilfulness; and the point is, whether that be really in every 
respect independent of God, or, whether its nature may not be of such 
sort as also, perhaps, to depend upon him, 7. 6. Whether God be not 
equally Lord over that which is evil, as over that which is good; a 
truth which both reason and Scripture oblige us to believe. Granting, 
however, that that which constitutes the substance of evil, is no less 
dependent upon God, than good, it follows that there is a necessity, 
and hence a prescience, to be supposed in evil also. Scripture, at 
least, speaks of time as by no means a mere semblance, and that 
doctrine, according to which, the purpose of redeeming and calling 
believers, is placed xed χαταβολῆς κόσμου, 15 in no wise devoid of im- 
port. Its momentous import is this, that the plan of redemption and 
restoration in Christ, was not one supplemented under casual circum- 
stances, or that arose ex-improviso, but, on the contrary, was cotem- 
poraneous with the plan of creation; that the fall, with the long term 
of defection, was not an unfortunate occurrence in the creation of 
God, but was adopted by God, with free choice, which freedom is 
evinced on the one hand, by the plan of salvation and by eternal 
damnation on the other. ‘The Apostle proceeds upon the fact, that 
in God’s sight the redemption is complete, even to its last manifesta- 
tion, reception into the δόξα. God who is elevated above all time, 
and sees in every thing the end in the beginning, knows how be- 
lievers, by perseveringly clinging to the Saviour, take in his life and 
are drawn into close fellowship with him. By virtue of this also he 
delivers the objective announcement, that true believers, even here 


CHAPTER VIII. v. 28. 273 


below, receive pardon and adoption, along with every title to heaven, 
although, for the present, they have but initiatively an interest in 
Christ. On the χλῆσις of Christians, see ὁ. 1. 7. ‘The appellation 
χλητὸς, does not involve, per se, the averment that those of whom it 
is used, have obeyed the call addressed to them; this accessory sense, 
however, has become fixed, and so the appellation χλητοὺὶ is in the 
New Testament used of those disciples of Christ, who have actually 
obeyed the call, and connected themselves with his church. 1 Cor. 
i. 24. Judei. Rev. xvii. 14. An exception must be made of Matt. 
xx. 16, and xxii. 14, where it only signifies persons invited, without 
regard to their consenting or refusing to come, whereas ἐχλεχτοὺὶ, de- 
notes the accepted among those to whom the call was delivered. It 
is consequently perfectly synonymous with Christian. ‘That it is 
here a substantive is also clear, from the circumstance of oto: being 
affixed. 

xara πεόθεσιν. The πρόθεσις is the resolve, purpose of God, which 
is avouched by the usus loquendi in the New ‘Testament and Greek 
authors, Rom. ix. 11, ἡ xar’ ἐχλογὴν πεόθεσις, Eph. i. 11; iii. 11. 
2Tim.i.9. 2 Mace. iii.8. Diod. Sic. 1.1, 6. 986. Nothing but a 
spirit of controversy, choosing amiss amidst the means of warfare, 
could ever have brought expositors to fancy that πρόθεσις denotes the 
bias of the will in men. Origen: Secundum propositum vocati di- 
euntur, qui priusquam vocarentur, propenso jam tunc erant animo ad 
cultum divinum, quorumque promte jam voluntati tantum deerat 
vocatio. So likewise Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cyril, Pelagius 
and Suidas. Hammond seeks, with much learning, to vindicate this 
sense, and is followed by Clericus. The parallel passages adduced, 
and which state the fact of their being called, according to the x eo- 
θεσις Of God, as the prerogative of Christians, inasmuch as in this 
view their salvation appears the more certain, testify decidedly 
against such an interpretation of xeddeors. In other passages, when 
speaking of men’s conversion, the Apostle does not bring forward 
what themselves have contributed thereto, being ever fully penetrated 
with the sense of the divine influence alone. On the other hand, 
however, the predestinarians, following Augustine (De corrept. et 
vratia, ¢. 23), have no Jess introduced an extraneous reference into 
the passage, inasmuch as they suppose that the annexation τοῖς xard 
πρόθεσιν κλητοὺς οὖσυ States the ground of the aforementioned perse- 
vering, and therefore true, love of God. Such love they affirm is 
not to be found in all the xanzocs, but in those only who are called 
κατὰ πρόθεσιν, 2. 6. those in whom God makes not merely the out- 
ward call by the word to take effect, but likewise the inward action 
of grace. ‘This reference, however, needs not to be brought into the 
text. All that can be naturally found in the words, is merely the 
confirmation of the fact that, God having once determined the recep- 
tion of true Christians into his kingdom, all that He brings upon 
them, even tribulation itself, can be no hinderance in the way of that, 
provided only that the Christian does not injure himself. 


274 CHAPTER VII. v. 29. 


V.29. Here the Apostle gives a description in detail of the xajous 
xata τὴν πεόθεσιν, Which is connected quite casually with the forego- 
ing. The appointing of men to be citizens of the kingdom of heaven, 
is decomposed into various transactions. ‘These are for man sepa- 
rate, but cannot, so far as God is concerned, be viewed as different 
and successive. Although we may relatively predicate succession 
in reference to them, in God they must necessarily be one. The 
Apostle accordingly represents them as having been altogether extant 
in God from eternity. In the following verbs, to be sure, the xeo 
merely designates the priority of the decree to the execution, it also 
relates, however, to the χαταβολὴ τοῦ xdcuov. It thus expresses that 
God, in the original production of the world, had already in his eye 
the entire developement of the decree of salvation in the instance of 
the individual, and had already calculated every thing with regard to 
it. Bucer: Omnia hee apud Deum perfecta sunt, cum ex animo 
destinavit, utcunque in nobis suo demum tempore perficiantur. 

ὅτι ods πξοέγνω καὶ προώξισε. ‘The ὅτι we may thus paraphrase: 
“To the disciples of Christ all must work together for good. For 
supposing them actually to be his disciples, it follows that by the very 
fact of their having become believers, they were recognized, in the 
eyes of God, from all eternity, as likewise heirs of the kingdom. 
How should they then, under such circumstances, regard the suffer- 
ings of time as a mark of God’s wrath, or of the loss of his love, and 
not rather as an avenue to glory?’ The first question which meets 
us here is, whether, as Cornelius a Lapide, for instance, wishes, 
neotyva and προώξισε taken together form the antecedent clause, so 
that ἐκάλεσε is what first answers to it. One might conclude this from 
the circumstance, that in the following verses τούτους» in each case, 
answers to the ots. We perceive, however, even from the δὲ after 
οὕς» instead of which there would else have been an οὖν, that meowevoe 
must be the after clause, and that xai signifies also. 

With respect now to προέγνω we find, even in ancient times, a 
double signification given to it, whereupon modern expositors also 
divide. Origen takes it in the sense of »1, to love, prefer, which it 
often bears. On the contrary, Theophylact, @icumenius, Ambrose, 
Augustine in the Prop. 55, give it the sense of to foreknow. Upon 
this twofold exposition, the Calvinistic and Lutheran churches sepa- 
rate. ‘The Lutheran expositors, Bucer, Baldwin, Hunnius, Calov, 
and among moderns, Heumann and Michaelis take the foreknowing 
in the proper sense of the term, explaining it, ** he knew beforehand 
the action of their free will in believing.”” ‘The Calvinists again dis- 
cover, with Origen, in the xegoywdoxew, the intimation of a peculiar 
complacency, which, in their view, flows, without any ulterior 
ground, from the decretum absolutum. Compare, in particular, 
Peter Martyr upon this passage, who at once says: Videtur hic pre- 
scientia non latius aut fusius accipi, quam predestinatio. He cites, 
in support of his opinion, the texts in which γινώσχευν is used solely 
in reference to the true disciples of Jesus, John x. 14, 15. 2 Tim. 11. 


CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 29. 275 


19; also 1 Pet. 1.90. He further argues, that Acts ii. 23, πεόγνωσις 
is closely connected with ὡρφισμένη βουλὴν and at 1 Pet. i. 2, with 
ἐχλεχτὸς. In fine, that the climax, in which to all whom the Apostle 
here encourages with the wedyveors, future glory is likewise guaran- 


teed, manifests that the πρόγνωσις must denote the /ove of God, im- 


parting powers of grace to all upon whom it acts. Calvin says: Dei 


~ preeognitio non nuda est prescientia, ut stulte fingunt quidam impe- 


riti, sed adoptio, qua filios suos a reprobis semper discrevit. Quo 
sensu venit 1 Petri i. 1. Quare insulse colligunt illi, quos dixi, 
Deum non alios elegisse, nisi quos sua gratia dignos fore previdit. 
Neque enim Petrus fidelibus blanditur, ac si pro suo quisque merito 
electus foret, sed eos ad eternum consilium Dei revocans omni digni- 
tate prorsus abdicat. 

With regard to the Catholic interpreters, most of them, and among 
others Erasmus, in his Com. take γινώσχειν in the metonymic sense 
of fo love, approve, and blend with it in a greater or less degree ac- 
eording to their several schools, and likewise, with more or fewer 
distinctions, the predestinarian meaning. In his paraphrase, Eras- 
mus, while he also gives reoywdoxew the sense of to foreknow, ex- 
presses himself quite synergistically: [lud habemus certissimum, 
quicquid malorum piis acciderit, omnia cedere in bonum, tantus est 
Dei favor in eos, quos ex destinata animi sui voluntate delegit ac vo- 
eavit in hane felicitatem. Noster est conatus, ceterum eventus pen- 
det a decreto Di. Non temere delegit Deus. Novit ille suos 
multo antequam vocaret. In fine, the Arminians also take πξογινώσ- 
xew in the sense, fo regard with affection, to acknowledge, but they 
affirm, at the same time, that it is left wholly undetermined by the 
Apostle, for what reason God makes these the peculiar objects of his 
love, whether the bias of their own will contributes any thing to this 
effect, or whether God loves them without any ground at all, and 
according to a decretum absolutum. ‘The same view of the Apostle’s 
declaration is also entertained by several Lutherans, Mosheim, Baum- 
garten, Chr. Schmid and others. It appears, however, that neither 
of the two mentioned verbal interpretations of πεἪογινώσκειν ought to 
be sustained. Just as γινώσκω itself has the meaning fo resolve. (See 
Kypke Obs. ad 1 Petri i. 20, 6. g. Josephus, Antiqu. 1. 1. ¢. 11, it is 
said of God with regard to the Sodomites: ἔγνω τιμωφήσασθαι τῆς ὑπεδ- 
npavias αὐτούς.) SO likewise has προγινώσκω" and as often as the verb 
or the noun xeoyvdors appears in the New Testament—with the sole 
exception of Acts xxvi.5; and 2 Pet. iii. 17—they have uniformly 
the sense of, (before) to resolve, resolution. ‘This meaning is by 
far the likeliest in the passage, Rom. xi. 2, ὁ λαὸς ὃν weoéyva, ‘* the 
people which he destined or elected before the foundation of the 
world.”” Acts ii. 23, wedyvaors is evidently equivalent to decretum, 
statutum. In like manner most expositors allow, 1 Peter i. 20, that 
nedeyvasmévos is to be translated elected, destined. (‘The xeo in this 
case may be without signification.) So likewise 1 Pet. i. 2, does 
κατὰ πρόγνωσιν ἐχλεχτοὶ appear to bear the same signification as else- 


\ 


276 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 29. 


where (2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. iii. 11,) xara weodeow. In this way, 
moreover, we also perceive how the οὖς weoéyvw again takes up the 
xara πρόθεσιν κλητοιν and obtain a very close transition. A doctrinal 
bias brought the Calvinists very near the signification we have given, 
only they have always endeavoured to derive it from the idea of lov- 
ing, which they supposed contained in weoéyyo. Notwithstanding, 
however, that we take πιξοέγνω in the sense, ‘to destine for disciples 
of Christ before the world’s foundation,”’ the Calvinistic doctrine can 
as little be found in it as in the χατὰ πεόθεσιν χλητοις. Let us but 
pay attention to the connection and the Apostle’s design, and it will 
be seen that the xara πεόθεσιν χλήτοις οὔσυ can merely denote that 
God having. from all eternity, resolved to call those who are Chris- 
tians, and his purpose being irreversible, the glorification that awaits 
them hereafter, can never be rendered doubtful by any suffering of 
the present. Accordingly we may translate: “For whom he re- 
solved, before the foundation of the world was laid, to make citizens 
of the kingdom of heaven, them has he also......””. The point re- 
maining quite undecided, whether God’s purpose emanated from a 
baseless decretum absolutum, or whether, in any way, a relation is 
to be supposed betwixt the bias of ‘the will in man and the divine 
influences. 

καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους. ‘The Lutheran expositors, who deride 
the Calvinists for giving to προέγνω almost the same sense as to προ- 
weuse, are in the wrong. It is by no means true, as they suppose, 
that this gives rise to the tautology, pradestinavit, quos predestinavit: 
Much more is xegodeuse closely connected with ovunoepovs, and thus 
declares what is the object and issue of the call, whereas προέγνω inti- 
mates more the call itself. ‘The Syriac expresses the προορίζειν by 
a term which means fo mark out, to appoint. It is to be found in 
a similar connection at Eph. 1. ὅ, 11. Acts iv.28. As that whereto 
God destined his own, was conceived as something future, we must, 
with Grotius, supply a γενέσθαι. Συμμόξφους which ought properly 
to govern the dative, is used here as a substantive, and consequently 
has the genitive. 

τῆς εἰκόνος Tov υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ. The εἰχὼν might be pleonastic; the LXX. 
use it as they also do ὁμοίωμα for the translation of the Hebrew word 
nis, Gen. v. 1. The Hebrew n97, however, and after it the ὁμοίω- 
μα in Hellenistic, when joined to adjectives as well as verbs, signify- 
ing likeness, are purely pleonastic, (Rom. v. 14; vi. 5.): So also 
might εἰκὼν be in the present case. It may, however, significantly 
denote the peculiar expressure of the ideal of humanity, in the person 
of Christ, the God in man; as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, it is said, that be- 
lievers in the state of glory, shall bear the image of the heavenly 
Adam. ‘That the prototype of humanity may be realized in us, by 
our assimilation to the glorified Son of God, is the ultimate scope of 
the developement of the human species, and of the divine predestina- 
tion. Several expositors, as Calov, Calixt, Limborch and others 
contend, that Paul here brings into view the thought so familiar to 


CHAPTER VIII. v. 29, 30. 277 


him, viz. that God has chosen to make Christians like to their 
Captain in all things, in suffering no less than in glorification, and 
that this thought is the more appositely introduced, seeing that the 
object of Paul is to show, that the final issue of suffering must be 
glory. Properly, however, this allusion cannot be in these words, 
for all that Paul means to specify, is the glorious scope towards 
which, as he afterwards says, the xajocs Scxacwors, and the exaltation 
to glory, conduct. It hence follows, that the statement of that scope 
cannot include the allusion to suffering. 

εἰς τὸ elvac αὐτὸν πρωτότοχον xtra. The expression is concise, and 
properly, in compliance with the Apostle’s intention, we must re- 
solve it thus: εἰς τὸ eae ἧμας ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. αὐτὸν δὲ πρωτότοκον. 
Christians received into fellowship with Christ, become, through 
him, χοινωνοὺ ϑείας φύσεως, 2 Pet. i. 4. According to Hebrews ii. 11, 
12, the Redeemer and the redeemed are equally of God, and hence 
the Redeemer is not ashamed to call them his brethren. The pattern 
of glorified humanity is head of the church, and from it, according to 
Eph. iv. 16, the whole body is fitly framed together, and one mem- 
ber depends upon another through all the joints. In as far, however, 
as the pattern holds a higher place than the copy, Christ takes the 
precedence among his brethren, he being the first born. ‘The new 
creation of human nature glorified has proceeded from him. It is 
not necessary, accordingly, to take the word zewroroxos merely in the 
improper sense of, the one chiefly esteemed, although this is a sense 
which it may, and which in the New Testament it likewise does 
bear. Thus David, Ps. Ixxxix. 27, is styled 23, the first born, 
and Ex. iv. 22, Israel is called God’s first born. Col. i. 15, Christ 
is called πεωτότοχος πάσης κτίσεως and Heb. i. 6, expressly, ὁ πρωτότο- 
xos. ‘Theophylact: Mewroroxos δὲ ἐστὶν ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοὺς κατὼ τὴν 
οἰκονομίαν" κατὼ γὰρ τὴν Θεότητα μονογενής. ‘Enel γὰρ ἡ πξοσληφθεῖσα 
σὰρφξ ἐχείσθη παξουσίᾳ ὅλου Tov χξίοντος, καὶ ἀπαῤχὴ ἡμῶν ἐγένετο, ἁγιασ- 
θεύσης ἐν Χριστῷ τῆς καταχφίτου φύσεως, εἰχότως πρωτότοχος ἐστι; καὶ 
ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ χεηματίζομεν. ἢ 

V. 30. Those men whom God, according to his mercy, has re- 
solved to receive into the kingdom of his Son, nay even to assimilate 
to himself, do, moreover, in time receive their call, their invitation 
into the kingdom. Calvinistic expositors, and also Augustine him- 
self, understand by this call, the inward operation of grace, which 
constitutes the only true χλῆσις. On the contrary, Lutherans under- 
stand by it, vocation by the preaching of the word, in so far as that is 
complied with. ‘There can be no doubt that by the xaascy we have 
primarily to understand the mere invitation to the kingdom of God, 


* He is the first born among many brethren, according to the covenant; for 
in respect of his Divinity, he is the only begotten. For when the flesh he 
assumed, was anointed by the presence of the entire anointer, and became 
our first fruits, the condemned nature being sanctified in Christ, he is right- 
fully the first born, and we are reckoned his brethren. 


278 CHAPTER VIII. v. 30, 31. 


in all the passages where it appears, 1 Cor. i. 9; vii. 15, 17, 18, 20, 
21,24. Gal. i. 6; v. 8, 13; Eph. iv. 1,4, andso on. It may well, 
however, be supposed, that the Apostle used the verb, as well as the 
participle χλητοὶν only of that vocation which is complied with, and 
by which the divine purpose is actually accomplished. Contrary 
both to the connection, and to the χλητὸς in v. 28, Grotius and Lim- 
borch want to limit the χλῆσις exclusively to the call to suffering. 

τούτους xai ἐδικαίωσεν. ‘hose who are called as persons to whom, 
according to his eternal purpose, God vouchsafes admittance into the 
kingdom of heaven, are also justified. The Apostle here treats of 
the objective act of justification, Compare what was said on ver. 28. 

τούτους xai ἐδόξασε. Before the divine intuition, which is inde- 
pendent of time, fallen humanity appears, from all eternity, not only 
as redeemed, but likewise as enjoying the fruits of redemption, and 
as exalted to glory. ΤῸ us, however, whose development takes 
place in time, it doth not yet appear what we shall be, 1 John iii. 2. 
One day, however, we shall reign with him the elder brother, 2 
Tim. ii. 19. 1 Thess. ii. 12. 2 Thess. ii. 14. Thus we read, 
Heb. x. 14, that by the ὑπακοή of Christ, once manifested in the his- 
tory of the world, all who shall be gradually sanctified, have already 
become τέλειον in the sight of God. Bengel: Loquitur in preterito, 
tanquam a meta respiciens ad stadium fidei, et ex eterna gloria in 
ipsam quasi retro zternitatem. 

V.31. The Apostle rises into an almost poetical enthusiasm, of 
which Erasmus, with all reason, says: Quid unquam Cicero dixit 
grandiloquentius! From the explication he here makes of his former 
theme, we moreover clearly see, that the sole purpose of the Apostle 
was to show, that nothing can harm the Christian, if the Christian 
does not harm himself. ‘Io speak of a decretum absolutum, in vir- 
tue of which God chooses to confer faith, and with faith, salvation, 
only on certain individuals, would have lain entirely out of the train 
of ideas which has hitherto been pursued. ‘The Apostle shows that 
suffering cannot frustrate the Divine call, the χλῆσις. ‘Io make this 
section furnish a proof of the Calvinistic view, it must have said, that 
even by revolt and sin the χλῆσις could, under no circumstances, be 
endangered. That the κλῆσις of believers may, however, be shaken 
by culpable unfaithfulness on their own part, appears at least to be 
implied in 2 Pet. 1. 10. 

The τί οὖν gpovper, as has been already explained, ec. iii. 9, here in- 
troduces the result of the previous contemplation. The πεὸς ταῦτα 
makes the formula more complete, when, following the Syriac and 
the Vulgate, we translate πρὸς, with respect to, Heb. iv. 13, and un- 
der ταῦτα, understand the whole previous detail. Bolten translates 
connectedly: ‘‘ From this we now draw the conclusion, that seeing ° 
God loves, nothing is able to injure us.’ Others rendering xeds, 
against, translate as Mosheim: ‘* What have we now to object to 
this argument?’’ Admirably speaks Chrysostom: ‘Qs ἂν εἴποι, μὴ 
τοίνυν λέγε μου χουπὸν περὶ τῶν χενδύνων χαὺ τῆς παρὰ πάντων ἐπυβουλῆς- 


CHAPTER VIII. v. 31, 32, 33. 279 


εἰ yde καὶ τοὺς μέλλουσι τινες διαπιστοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰ ἤδη γεγενημένα, 
ἀγαθὰ οὐδὲν ἂν ἔχοιεν εἰπεῖν" οἷον, τὴν ἄνωθεν Tov Θεοῦ meds σὲ φιλίαν; 
τὴν διχαίωσιν, τὴν δόξαν. χαὶ yae ταῦτά σου διὰ τῶν δοχούντων εἶναι Av- 
πηρὼν ἐχαξισατο. καὶ ὅπερ ἐνόμιζες αἰσχύνην εἶναν τὸν σταυξὸν, τὰς 
μάστιγας; τὰ δεσμὰ, ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ τὴν οἰκουμένην κατώρθωσεν ἅπασαν---- 
Tis καθ᾽ ἡμὼν; τίς yae οὐ χαθ᾽ ἡμῶν; nots καὶ yae ἡ οἰκουμένη χαθ᾽ ἡμὼν, 
χαὺ TVEAVYOL, καὶ δῆμοι, καὶ συγγενεῖς, καὶ πολυταυ. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὗτοι, οἱ 
χαθ᾽ ἡμῶν τοσοῦτον ἀπέχουσιν ἐπηξεάζειν ἡμῖν, OTL XOL GxOVTES στεφάνων 
MLV αἴτιος γίνονται» χαὶ μυξίων ἀγαθῶν πρόξενοι, τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφίας τὰς 
ἐπιβουλὰς εἰς τὴν ἡμετέδαν σωτηξίαν καὶ δόξαν τρεπούσης.ἢ Calvin: Con- 
eutiuntur fideles non dejiciuntur. The interrogation heightens, as it 
always does, the liveliness of the sentiment. 

V. 32. Ὅσγε τοῦ iSvov υἱοῦ οὐχ ἐφείσατο. What in Abraham was a 
mark of peculiar love to God (Gen. xxii. 12), is a special mark of 
the love of God to men. “Ooys, De Wette, He who, or He, surely. 
Vids Θεοῦ. Compare chap. i. 4. Although idcog, like the Latin pro- 
prius, frequently bears the sense of swws, it also frequently bears that 
of proprius. (See Bretschn. Lexicon), and, accordingly, it is here 
equivalent to the μονογενὴς joined to wosin John. Hence, Luther 
and De Wette translate well “" seines eigenen Sohnes,”’ his own son. 
As the latter, likewise, John v. 18, correctly renders ἐδιον πατέρα; his 
proper father. 

bree ἡμὼν πάντων παρέδωκεν. Το παρέδωκεν, εἰς ϑάνατον ought 
properly to be supplied, as it stands in full, Matt. x. 21. Compare 
John iii. 16. Luke xxii. 19. Gal. i. 4. On the idea to be con- 
nected with izie, see chap. v. 8. It becomes a question, whether 
under πάντες we are to understand all men, or merely Christians. 
Lutheran expositors usually take it universally, so that the ἡμεῖς de- 
notes Men. ‘The aim of the Apostle being, however, only to com- 
fort Christians, and likewise, as the vocation of Christians exclu- 
sively has hitherto been spoken of, it is most probable that ἡμεῖς de- 
notes such. 

καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ, is a concise expression, used in place of χαξισάμενος ai- 
τὸν ἡμῖν. Kai, Bengel: Addit epitasin argumento a majori ad minus. 

V.33. Expositors differ in the punctuation of this verse. Augustine, 
De doctr. Chr. 1. III. ο. 3, for the purpose of adding animation to the 
diction, wants to put a point of interrogation after δικαιῶν, and also 


* As if he said, Tell me no more of dangers and snares laid for us by all 
the world. For were any to disbelieve future things, still they could have 
nothing to object to the blessings already bestowed, such, for example, as the 
love of God to you, justification, glory. These he has conferred upon you 
by means of what appeared calamities. And as for your esteeming a dis- 
grace, the cross, the scourge and bonds, these are just what have restored the 
whole habitable globe. Who its against us? Who is not against us, he 
says? The whole world, princes and people and kinsmen and fellow citizens 
are all against us. Nevertheless, even they who are against us are so far 
from doing us any harm, that even against their will, they make crowns, and 
procure for us a thousand blessings, the wisdom of God converting their plots 
into our salvation and glory. 


280 CHAPTER VIII. V. 30> 


after every separate proposition from ver. 34. So likewise Erasmus 
in his Commentary, Locke, Schéttgen, Griesbach and others. Au- 
gustine was doubtless betrayed into this mistake, solely by the Latin 
translation, which renders the passage as if it were pointed in the 
manner specified. ‘That punctuation, however, cannot be defended, 
for it would create a quite unnatural accumulation of questions, seeing 
there would be seven in verses 33 and 34, and, again, seven more 
following in ver. 36. Just as little is it allowable for Chrysostom, 
(Ecumenius, Theodoret, Beausobre, Heumann and others, to unite 
into one sentence, Θεὸς ὃ δικαιῶν and τίς 6 χαταχφίνων. In that case, 
the first question, τίς ἐγχαλέσει, would have no answer, the answer 
to the second question would then be contained already in the former 
clause, and ver. 34, which, according to our view, gives the answer 
to the τίς 6 xaraxecvw», would thereby lose its whole weight. We 
prefer, accordingly, the common punctuation likewise followed by 
Luther, according to which the only points of interrogation are one 
after Θεοῦ, and another after 6 xazaxevvwr. In that way, the two par- 
ticiples ὁ δικαιὼν and Χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθανὼν, after the Hebrew idiom, 
form, with the article, the predicate, coming in the place of the ver- 
bum finitum, as Deut. iii. 31, msn Pry, and 1 Sam. xvii. 20, syn 
nn. See Gesenius Lehrgeb. 5. 708. The Syriac also translates 
the δικαιῶν here by the participle. Calvin observes, that the question 
with ἐγχαλέσευ, would be better placed beside the answer with Xeco- 
τὸς, seeing that Christ is properly the intercessor, as on the other 
hand would the Θεὸς ὁ δικανῶν, beside that with xacaxecvev, inasmuch 
as it is properly God, who, in the character of judge, does away con- 
demnation for the sake of Christ. He then adds. Sed Paulus non 
temere alio modo transtulit, volens a summo usque ad infimum mu- 
nire fiducia filios Dei. Magis ergo emphatice colligit, filios Dei non 
obnoxios esse accusationi, quia Deus justificat, quam si dixisset, 
Christum esse patronum, quia melius exprimit viam judicii eminus 
preclusam esse, ubi pronuntiat judex, se a reatu prorsus eximere, 
quem ad penam volebat trahere accusator. Secunde quoque anti- 
theseos eadem est ratio. Longe enim abesse ostendit fideles a sube- 
undz damnationis periculo, quum Christus peccata expiando preve- 
nerit Dei judicium. 

τίς ἐγκαλέσει. In profane authors, likewise, ἔγχαλεῦν cove τὺ has 
the meaning, to lay something to the charge, to accuse. It seems 
not improbable, according to the opinion of Grotius, Limborch, and 
Bolten, that Paul alludes to the accusations brought by the Gentiles 
against the Christians. ‘This cannot, however, be all, and, moreover, 
it does not agree with the τίς ὁ xavaxewwrv. We shall do better to 
imagine some man, angel, or devil, accusing Christians before God’s 
tribunal. It is taken in this general way by Ambrose and others.’ 

ἐχλεχτὸς Means properly, selected. In that sense, equally with the 
Hebrew wna and ¥n32, and also N23), all derivatives of ὝΠ2, to select, 
it is used in the sense of 1p", precious, dear, and is equivalent to 
ἔντιμος, according to 1 Pet. 11.4. Hence dyyenou ἐκλεχτοὺν ** the angels 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 33, 34, 35. 251 


beloved of God,’’ 1 Tim. v. 21. Hence also are Christians called a 
γένος ἐκλεκτὸν βασιλικὸν; 1 Pet. 11. 9. ‘O τοὺ Θεοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς 18 a title of 
the Messias, Luke xxiii. 35. It is according to this usus loquendi 
that Christians come to be styled, favourites. of God, 1 Peter i. 1. 
Mark xiii. 20. Matt. xxiv. 22,31. Luke xviil. 7. Colos. iii. 12. 
Titus i. 1. Rev. xvii. 14. According to the usus loquendi, there 
is. therefore, in this word not the slightest basis for the doctrine of 
absolute election. In Matt. xx. 16; xxii. 14, likewise, txaexvos, In 
contrast with χλητὸς. signifies only the favourite, the dear child of 
God. UHence the Ne translates, the pure, the chosen. 

Χειστὸς 6 ἀποθανών. Luther translates well: Christus tst hier, der... 
Christ has taken upon himself the punishment of all. Were any 
therefore to condemn, still no penalty would any more fall upon us. 

V. 34. By the representation which, as he is wont to do, Paul 
here makes of the resurrection of the Saviour as a higher, and of his 
exaltation and entrance into glory, as the highest stage of his work 
of redemption, a fine elevation is effected simultaneously, and in pro- 
portional degrees, of the proof of the impossibility of condemnation. 
For the train of the ideas is now as follows: How can any one be 
for condemning us, when Christ not only died for our sings, but the 
selfsame person who satisfied for these, is even himself joint Judge 
and likewise intercessor with God. 

Sitting at the right hand of God is descriptive of participation in 
his government. Among the ancients, persons who were to receive 
honour were usually seated at the king’s right hand, 1 Kings 11. 19. 
1 Sam. xx. 25. 1 Macc. x. 63. Matt. xx. 21. Mark x. 37. Sueton, 
Tiber, c. 6. Sallust. Jugur.c. 11. Among the Greeks, the deiues 
of chief esteem were, in like manner, conceived as ovrPeovoe, obvedéeor, 
assitting on the right hand of Jupiter. Callimachus, Hymn. in Apoll. 
v. 28, 29. Hence likewise in Psalm ex. 1, the Messias is repre- 
sented as sitting at God’s right hand; and so in the New Testament 
is Christ described as He who sits in the same throne with God, 
Rev. iii. 21, and at his right hand, Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. 

ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει. "This ἔντευξυς Ἢ Christ, which is also alluded to 
at Heb. vii. 25; ix. 24. 1 John ii. 1, expresses in a figure, that the 
power of Chrisi’s redemption ese itself as continually opera- 
live. Chrysostom: To ἐντυγχάνειν δι᾿ οὐδὲν ἕτεξον εὔρηκενν ἄλλ᾽ ἵνα τὸ 
see wor καὶ ἀχμάζον τῆς περὶ ἡμᾶς ἀγάπης ἐνδείξηται. * : 

‘V. 35. The import of this conclusion, which glows with holy 
enthusiasm, is as follows: Whatsoever, therefore, may befall us in 
this life, in the shape of affliction, persecution, and temptation, still, 
as Christ loves us in an everlasting way, we may be immovably per- 
suaded that his love will be continual. ‘The Apostle, therefore, does 
not represent, as a thing irreversible, that the man who has once be- 
lieved, is secure from the possibility of wholly falling away in such 


* For nothing else has he spoken of interceding, but to show the fervour 
and vehemence of his love for us. 


36 


282 CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 


temptations. What he says is, that suffering tribulation ought 
never to make us doubtful of the love of God. Some expositors, 
such as Ambrose, Erasmus, Majus and Heumann, have proposed 
taking the genitive Χριστοῦ as gen. obj. our love for Christ, but then 
the whole design of the Apostle was to lead the believer off from the 
thought, the offspring of a little faith, that afflictions were tokens of 
wrath, or changeableness on the part of God. Accordingly, the 
ἀγάπη Χειστοὺ is in ver. 39, styled the ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 
which makes it sufficiently clear that we have to consider the Χεισ- 
τοῦ here as gen. subj. Clarius deems that it is to be taken as the 
gen. obj. and subj. together, which, however, is inconceivable. The 
reading Θεοῦ καὶ Χειστοῦ is not supported by any external evidence 
whatever, and just as little by internal, it being easy to account for its 
origin. Calvin beautifully observes with respect to the whole verse: 
Sicuti enim nebula quamvis liquidum solis conspectum obscurent, 
non tamen ejus fulgore in totum nos privant, sic Deus in rebus ad- 
versis per caliginem emittit gratia sue radios, ne qua tentatio despe- 
ratione nos obruat, imo fides nostra promissionibus Dei tanquam alis 
fulta, sursum in coelos per media obstacula penetrare debet. Chry- 
sostom: Ὅξα τῇ μακαξίον Παύλου σύνεσιν. οὐ γὰρ εἶπε ταῦτα οἷς xa” 
ἡμέξαν ἁλὶ σκόμεδα, χεημάτων ἔρωτα; καὶ δόξης ἐπιϑυμίαν, καὶ ὀξγῆς τυξαν- 
νίδα, ἀλλ᾽ ἃ πολλῷ τότων ἐστὶ τυξαννυκώτεξα, καὶ τὴν φύσιν αὐτὴν ἱκανὰ 
βιάσασθαι, καὶ διανοίας στεῤῥότητα ἀναμοχλεῦσαν πολλάκις καὶ ἀκόντων 
ἡμῶν, ταῦτα τίθησι, ϑλύψεις καὶ ςενοχωρίας. εἰ ae καὶ εὐαφίθμητα τὰ 
εἰρημένα, ἀλλὰ μυξίους Eyer πειξασμῶν Seuabas ἑκάςη λέξις. ὅταν yae ἔυπῃ 
Sauber, καὶ δεσμωτήξια λέγῃ» Seopa, καὶ συκοφαντίας, καὶ ἐξορίας» καὶ τὰς 
ἄλλας ταλαιπωξίας ἁπάσας: Eve ῥήματι πέλαγος κινδύνων διατέχων ἄπειρον» 
χαὶ πάντα ἁπλὼς τὰ ἐν ἀνδεώποις δεινὰ διὰ μιᾶς ἡμῖν ἐμφαίνων λέξεως. 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως πάντων αὐτὼν κατατολμᾷ. διὸ καὶ κατὰ ἐρώτησιν αὐτὸ προάγειν 
ὡς ἀναντίῤῥητον ὃν, ὅτι τὸν &tws ἀγαπηϑέντα, καὶ τοσαύτης ἀπολαύσαντα 
rteovoras, οὐδέν ἔστιν ὃ διαςήσαυ δυνήσεται. ἢ 

If desirous, moreover, of fully feeling the weight of this question, 
and fully appreciating the divine power which enabled the Apostle 
to express a sentiment of the kind, we must here remember that he 


* Remark the judgment of the blessed Paul. He does not mention those 
things by which we are daily enticed; such as the love of riches, and the 
desire of glory, and the tyranny of anger; but he specifies things which ex- 
ercise a far more imperious sway, which are such as to do violence to our 
very nature, and shake the firmness of the mind, even in spite of our wills, 
viz. tribulation and distress. For, although the things here enumerated, may 
easily be counted, yet every word includes innumerable trains of temptation. 
For, in specifying tribulation, he likewise speaks of dungeons, fetters, calum- 
nies, exiles, and all other calamities, crossing with one word an untried ocean 
of dangers, and exhibiting by a single term the whole range of objects that’ 
are terrible to man. At the same time, however, he courageously bears up 
against them all. By the question, accordingly, he brings this forward as a 
truth not to be gainsaid, viz. That there is nothing which shall be able to 
separate the person who is the object of so fond a love, and οἵ so watchful a 
providence. 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 36, 37. 283 


speaks as one experienced in suffering, and who, for his Saviour’s 
sake, was made as ‘‘ the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all 
things,”’ 2 Cor. xi. 23—32. 1 Cor.iv.10—13. All that he says of 
persecution and hunger, nakedness and the sword, was just what he 
had himself gone through, as he describes in the texts quoted. The 
man who, in such circumstances, as according to Cor. vi. 4—10, he 
represents himself to have been in chastened, and not killed; sor- 
rowful, yet always rejoicing; dead, and yet alive, was enabled to 
endure, yea even to exclaim, ‘In all these things we are more than 
conquerors!’’ in that man Christ was of a truth become the life, and 
it was not himself merely who bore it all. 

On the τίς Calvin makes the noble reflection: The Apostle does 
not use zc but evs, just as if all the creatures and all affiictions were 
so many gladiators taking arms against the Christian. On ϑλύψις 
xai στενοχωξία; 588 6. il. 9. 

V. 36. An expression in the Old Testament occurs to the Apostle, 
which accurately describes the relation of Christ’s disciples to their 
persecuting adversaries. As those Israelites laid down their lives for 
the outward, so do the Christians theirs, for the spiritual ‘heocracy. 
The passage is correctly cited out of the LXX. from Psalm xliy. 22. 
That Psalm is referred by most expositors to the persecutions of the 
Jews under Epiphanes. It is unnecessary, however, to go back to 
so remote a period, the Psalm might also have been composed upon 
an incursion of the Assyrians. 

neopata σφαγῆς. ‘The expression is by Surenh. specially referred 
to the sheep which were all day long slaughtered in the outer court 
of the temple. ‘The general meaning “of ‘cattle destined for 
slaughter,”’ is, however, the more natural. At 1 Cor. iv. 9, Paul 
styles the Apostles ἐπιθανατίους. 

V.37. The ἀλλὰ, as is justly observed by Beza, is not merely a 
particle of transition, but forms a forcible contrast like πλὴν ἀλλὰ. 

ὑπερνιχῶμεν. Even the Vulgate does not look upon the ὑπέρ as 
emphatical; so likewise Alberti and others. But Beza justly trans- 
lates it: Amplius quam victores sumus, quoniam in cruce etiam glo- 
riamur, nedum ut animum despondeamus. Except where the con- 
text forbids its being retained, there is no reason to renounce the 
emphatic sense. ‘The same is the case with many other verbs, as 
iregayarnay, ὑπερισχύειν, ὑπεξλυπειν. SO imeextaowar xaxdv signifies, 
“61 have a grief which I have brought upon myself;’’ 7. e. above 
what rightfully falls to me, Sophocles, Electra, s. 217. Luther 
finely and pertinently: “ Wir tiberwinden weit,” We conquer far. 
Chrysostom: To γὰξ δὴ ϑαυμαστὸν τῦτον ἐστιν» οὐχ᾽ ὅτυ νὺν νυκῶμεν μό- 
νον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ δὲ ὧν ἑπίβελενόμεδα νικῶμεν. καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς νυκῶμεν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὑπεξδνιχῶμεν, τουτέστι, μετὼ εὐχολίας ἁπάσης, χωρὶς ἱδρώτων καὶ 
πόνων. οὐ γὰς πξάγματα ὑπομένοντες» ἀλλὰ τὴν γνώμην παξασχευάζοντες 
μόνον, οὕτω πάνταχἕ τὰ τξβόπαια ἱςῶμεν xara Tov ἐλ χϑξῶν. χκαὺ μάλα 
εἰκότως. δεὸς γὰρ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ὃ συναγωνιζόμενὸς. μὴ τοίνυν ἀπιστήσῃς εἰ 


284 CHAPTER VIII. V. 37, 38. 


μαςιϑόμενοι τῶν μαστιδόντων πεδιγινόμεδα: εἰ ἐλαυνόμενοι τῶν διωκόντων 
κρατᾶμεν, εἰ ἀποθνήσκοντες τὰς δῶντας τρεπόμεϑδα. ὅταν γὰρ καὺ THY δυ- 
ναμιν τοὺ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάτίην S75, οὐδὲν τὸ χωλύον τὰ ϑαυμαςὰὼ ταῦτα 
ἐχβήναυνγ καὶ παράδοξα. καὶ τὴν ἐκ περιϑσίας λάμψαυ νύχην.ἢ 

διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος. The Vulgate, the Ethiopic version, Ambrose, 
Cyprian and Koppe will have it that διὰ stands with the genitive in- 
stead of with the accusative, and that Paul’s intention is to say, how 
the love felt by the Christian to the Saviour, enables him to over- 
come all difficulties. Luther too translates in this sense. But, apart 
from the consideration, that the exchange of the two eases after dud, 
is not yet certainly demonstrated, we have no more reason to sup- 
pose such substitution, than not to suppose it. We obtain equally 
an appropriate sense, if the Apostle maintains a power of Christ, in- 
wardly strengthening him under his temptation, as he does, Phil. iv. 
13: πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμᾶντί με Kevotas where ἐν is equivalent to 
διὰ with the genitive. This inward power of Christ, however, rests 
on the consciousness of the redemption secured through him. 

V.38. The same thought more forcibly brought forward. A fer- 
vour of divine love, like that with which the Apostle here glows, and 
kindled like his, by love on the part of God to him, may take home 
the words in the song of Solomon, viii. 6: “ Love is strong as death; 
jealousy is cruel as the grave; the coals thereof are coals which have 
a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither 
ean the floods drown it.’? Admirably does the great Chrysostom, 
interpreting Paul’s fervour with a like fervour of his own, remark: 
Ταῦτα δὲ ἔλεγεν, οὐχ ὡς τῶν ἀγγέλων Tito ἐπυχειρόέντων. ἢ τῶν ἀλλῶν δυνά- 
μεων, μὴ γένοιτο; ἀλλὰ μεδ᾽ ὑπεξδολῆς ἁπάσης τὸ Φίλτρῥον, ὃ πρὸς τὸν 
ριυρὸν εἶχε, ἐπιδεῦῖξαν βελόμενος. οὐ yae τὸν Χριςὸν ἐφίλει διὰ τὰ τῇ 
Χοιςῇ, ἀλλὰ δὲ αὐτὸν τὰ ἐκείνε, καὶ meds αὐτὸν ἑώρα μόνον, καὶ ἕν ἐδεδοί- 
XEly τὸ μὴ τῆς ἀγάπης ἐκείνης ἐχπεσεῖν. τοῦτο γὰξ αὐτῷ xau γεέννης Φοβε- 
Et ee ov ἦν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μένειν ἐν αὐτῇ βασιλείας ποϑεινότερον. τίνος οὖν 
ἂν ἔιημεν ἄξιον λοιπὸν Huecg, ὅταν ἔχεινος μὲν μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐξανοίς 
δαυμάζῃ weds τὸν τῇ Ness πόδϑον, ἥμευς δὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ βοφβόξῳ καὶ τῷ πηλῷ 
τὸ Nes προτιμὼμεν-....«ἔκεινος οὐδὲ βασιλείαν ἡγεύταίύ ty διὰ τὸν Κριςὸν 
εἶναι, ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτᾷ καταφέξονδμεν, τῶν δὲ αὐτὰ πολὺν ποιόμεθα λόγον, καὺ 
εἶδε χὰν τῶν αὐτοῦ. νῦν δὲ οὐδὲ τῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ βασιλείας ἧμιν προχειμέ- 


* For the wonderful thing is not merely, that we gain the victory, but that 
we conquer by means of things, that were meant to ensnare us, and do not 
merely conquer, but more than conquer, z.e. with the utmost ease, and with- 
out sweat and toil. For not merely when actually suffering, but even when 
we but prepare our mind, do we erect trophies against the enemy. And 
rightfully too, for God is our fellow soldier. Do not therefore disbelieve, if, 
when scourged, we overcome the scourgers, if, when put to flight, we van-' 
quish our pursuers, if, when dying, we route the living. For when you have 
supposed both the power and the love of God, there is nothing to hinder these 
strange and incredible things from taking place, and the victory to be above 
measure splendid. . 


CHAPTER VIII. ν 38. 285 


UNS) ἐκείνην ἀφέντες». τὰς σκιὰς καὶ τὼ ὀνείρατα χαδ᾽ txagny διώκομεν τὴν 
ἡμέραν." Origen and Theodoret likewise comment with enthusiasm 
upon this verse. 

οὔτε Sdvaros, οὔτε ζωὴ. Koppe takes both these words metonymi- 
eally, as abstr. pro concr. neither dead nor living being. More 
eorrectly, along with most others, we interpret Sdvazos, as signifying 
death by violence, the threat of which might deter, and ζωὴ, either 
with Mosheim and Heumann, of the joys of life, or with Grotius, 
Turretin and others, of life promised under the condition of separa- 
tion, or with Limborch, and as best accords with the notion of God’s 
ἀγάπη, of the afflicted life of Christians. Similar is the passage, 
1 Cor. iii. 22. Baumgarten takes ϑάνατος metaphorically, in the sense 
of misery, ζωὴ, happiness. 

οὔτε ἄγγελου, οὔτε dpyare The codices AB C DE F G, the Cop- 
tic, Armenian, and Syriac translations, with several of the fathers, 
read οὔτε δύνάμεις after οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα, οὔτε μέλλοντα. Now, however 
unsuitable this location of the δυνάμεις may appear, seeing that else- 
where it is constantly found united with ἄγγελοι, we must still re- 
cognize the authority of the codices, even should we thereby be 
compelled to suppose an error of the pen on the part of the Apostle. 
And, with respect to the import of these three words, they are either 
all the three taken as designations of angels, or all three, or at least 
the two last, as designating something else. Wolle and Bolten 
translate ἀἄγγελου, deputies (of the government), legates, ἀρχαὺ and 
δυνάμεις», Heathen or Jewish magistracies. ‘The two last words are 
by numerous expositors, Turretin, Brais, Baumgarten, Heumann 
and others understood in this sense, supposing as they do, that thrée 
names for the higher spirits would be too tautological. Cocceius 
will have dpyot and δυνάμεις taken quite generally, every great and 
powerful person. Carpzov, according to Philo’s mode of using the 
words, conceives them to mean ¢he elements, just as some translate 
δυνάμεις at Mat. xxiv. 29. Elsner has shown, however, that ἀρχαὺ 
and δυνάμεις, even in Philo, have not this sense, when standing alone, 
but only when they have some other addition. Now, although 
apyad and δυνάμεις May certainty designate magistrates, inasmuch as 


* These things he said, not as if the angels or the other powers would 
attempt this, God forbid! But from the desire of showing with every hyper- 
bole, his love to Christ. For he did not love Christ, because of the things of 
Christ, but loved his things for Christ’s sake, and looked to him alone, and of 
one thing only was he afraid, viz. to fall from that love. This was to him 
more dreadful than hell; just as to continue in it was more desirable than 
heaven. What consequently must we deserve? He did not esteem the 
things that were in heaven, compared with the love of Christ, we prefer to 
Christ things of clay and filth.....He, on Christ’s account, does not reckon 
even a kingdom worth any thing; we despise himself, but have great esteem 
for his things. Nay, wouid indeed that we had esteem even for these. But 
now, is the case not even this, that, relinquishing the kingdom that is offered 
to us, we pursue shadows and dreams day after day? 


286 CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 


the two words have this signification, even in profane authors, we 
still prefer considering them equally with ἄγγελου, as designations of 
the higher spirits. ‘The Jews were accustomed to divide the angels, 
whom they called by the beautiful name ow sons, his family, into 
several classes ponwn, DWwW DINIW, OND, DIDS DDW, OWN, 
pox, 32 to each of which they assigned particular angels as pre- 
sidents. See Eisenm. Entd. Judenth, Th. 11. 5. 374, Bartolocci. 
Bibl. Rabb. T. I. p. 267.) The New Testament writers mention 
similar orders of the world of spirits, Eph. i. 21, where ἀρχὴν ἐξουσία 
and δύναμις are conjoined, Col. 1. 16, δεόνοι, xuprornress apyat, ἐξουσίαυ» 
1 Peier ill. 22, ἄγγελοι, ἐξουσίαι», δυνάμεις. The abstracts, in all these 
instances, stand in place of the concretes. It appears that these New 
Testament names likewise are borrowed from Judaism. Among the 
Rabbins at least we find the word which answers to δυνάμεις, and it 
is a very common one among them, 1990 Sw nim (Philo likewise 
styles the angels δυνάμεις, see Elsner, Obss. a. ἢ. 1.), and again the 
pw and 0°37 answering to χυριότης and ἀρχὴ, and in fine D°'NDD an- 
swering to ϑρόνοι, (comp. Schittgen on Col. i. 18), all designating 
orders of angels. Accordingly, as it is demonstrated that the Apos- 
tles, agreeably to the doctrine of the-Jewish theology, believed in 
several classes of angels, as these classes are, in other passages like- 
wise, mentioned, side by side, with the view of amplifying the idea, 
as the very words dpyoi and δυνάμεις, connected with names of 
angels, appear elsewhere in the New ‘Testament designating angels, 
but not as names of civil authorities, (ἀρχαὺ occurs at Tit. iii. 1, as 
designation of the magistracy, but joined with ἐξουσίαν and not with 
δυνάμεις)» aS, Moreover, were it joined with ἄγγελοι, and still retained 
the meaning civil authorities, Paul would have spoken very ob- 
scurely, in fine, as it would be very feeble to mention the terrestrial, 
immediately after the heavenly powers, it appears preferable to look 
upon épyai and δυνάμεις, aS being likewise names of heavenly beings. 
But it may, moreover, be asked again, whether, under all the three 
designations, as Origen thought, the Apostle intended the fallen 
angels, or whether, as Grotius, Turretin and others, he merely in- 
tended ἄγγελον to signify these, or whether he meant to designate 
good angels by all the three names. The fallen spirits are likewise 
named ἀρχαὶ xat ἐξουσίαι»; 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph. vi. 12. Col. ii. 15. 
They are also called ἄγγελοι, 2 Peter ii. 4, although with the adjunct 
ἁμαρτήσαντες. In support of this signification, it might be urged, that 
at Eph. vi. 12, likewise, Paul brings forward these fallen angels as 
adversaries of the Christians. In the present passage, however, he 
does not so much mention those creatures which are usually hostile 
to Christians, as rather, with Jofty poetical expression, all that can 
be conceived conflicting with them. Origen: Ait Paulus, hyperbo- 
lice, non solum per ea, que accidere possunt, sed ne per ea quidem, 
que evenire omnino non possunt, ullo pacto a Dei charitate deflecti- 
mur. It is accordingly more probable that he meant the powers 


CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 287 


nearest to God among the orders of heavenly spirits. ‘Their opposi- 
tion to the Christians he mentions only in the same hypothetical 
way as the preaching of the angel, Gal. 1. 8, 

οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα; οὔτε μέλλοντα 501]. πράγματα. So too 1Cor. iii. 22, and 
among these, persecutions are mainly to be understood. Calvin: Quia 
non tantum cum dolore, quem e malis presentibus sentimus, nobis 
lucta est, sed etiam cum metu et sollicitudine quibus angunt nos que 
impendent pericula. 

V.39. οὔτε ὕψωμα, οὔτε βάθος. These words have been interpreted 
in an extraordinary variety of ways. Origen understands by them, 
the wicked spirits dwelling in the air and in hell. Ambrose: Heights 
of presumptuous speculation, as Christ unites the knowledge celes- 
tial, with that of this earth, and deeps of sin, Christ having also de- 
scended into the lower parts of the earth, to do away our sins. 
Augustine: Vain curiosity about the things above, and below us, 
which separates us from God, Nisi caritas vincat, que ad certa spi- 
ritualia non vanitate rerum, que foris sunt, sed veritate, que intus, 
hominem invitat. Melancthon: Heretical speculations of the learned, 
and the vulgar superstition of the people. Wolf, Grotius: The ho- 
nour and the reproach of the world. Erasmus: High and low places 
from which assaults are made. Gicumenius, Cocceius, Chr. Schmid: 
Prosperity and adversity. Limborch: ‘The lifting up of Christians, 
when put to death by crucifixion, or their sebmersion in the sea. 
Heumann: All things one with another, (he compares the proverbial 
expression in Latin, Summa imis miscere, superis inferis notum est.) 
It requires, however, to be demonstrated, that the same usus loquendi 
in regard to ὕψωμα and βάθος prevailed in Greek. Without going 
over this multitude of different expositions, we shall endeavour to 
justify that which we regard as the best. ‘There are three objections 
to be made against them generally; either they are too special, or 
they find in βάθος and ὕψωμα something much too trivial, and which 
would appear feeble, after the hinderances before specified, or, finally, 
they are not supported by the usus loquendi. According to that, the 
most admissible would be the meaning, prosperity and adversity, 
which might then pass over into the more special one of honour and 
reproach, sos being the special designation of outward consequence 
and wealth, or of welfare generally, βάθος» on the contrary, of misery, 
Job xxiv. 24, in the LXX. 1 Macc.x. 24. Judithix. 20. Jas.i. 9. 
2Cor. xi.7. 2Cor. viii.2. More eligible notwithstanding appears 
the exposition of Theophylact, particularly of Theodoret. ‘The 
former interprets ὕψωμα, of the heavens, and βάθος, of the earth, and 
that per metonomen continentis pro contento, ‘all that is in heaven, 
and all that is upon the earth,” so that the sentiment would be of a 
piece with Ps. Ixxiii. 25, 26. Were this the meaning, we should 
have a sublime close of this sublime epinicion. In respect of ὕψωμα 
moreover, it would be easy to justify the signification. In Hebrew 
p17) means always heaven. By the LXX. it is uniformly rendered 
tos, Which has also this sense in the New Testament, Luke i. 78. 


288 CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 


Eph. iv. 1. On the other hand, in support of the meaning put upon 
βάθος, the earth, Eph. iv. 9, could alone be cited, where τὰ χατώ- 
reea μέρη τὴς γῆς» is to be found, γῆς being gen. appos. Doubtless, 
also, Paul chose this less usual expression, only for the sake of the 
more specific contrast. Whether in the LXX. Is. vii. 11, the ets 
βάθος, and εἰς ὕψος, signify, ** in heaven or upon the earth,” is as yet 
doubtful. ‘Theodoret says: Bados yae, ὡς οἶμαι; τὴν γέενναν ὀνομάζει» 
Bios, τὴν βασιλείαν. ‘This meaning of βάθος is more easily demon- 
strable than the former. In Hebrew the Scheol frequently receives 
the names 1 AYAAN, AANA yoR, Henny, 12, all of which answer 
to the βάθος; Rom. x. 7, the Scheol is called ina general way, ἀβυσ- 
cos; Luke viii. 31, and frequently in Revelation, that quarter of the 
Scheol, which contains the damned, is in particular called ἄβυσσος; 
Phil. ii. 10, the inhabitants of the Scheol, are styled χαταχθόνιου. 
Now this contrast of heaven and hell is still better adapted than all 
the forementioned meanings, to form the copestone of the Apostle’s 
epinicion. So is it conceived particularly by Bengel and Wetstein. 

οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέφα. ‘Theodoret takes χτίσις in the sense Natures 
Πᾶσαν ὁμοῦ τὴν χτίσιν ἀντιταλαντεύσας τῇ πεξὺ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγάπῃ, καὶ τοὺς 
deapévors συνάψας τὰ νοητὰ; ἀγγέλους», καὶ ἀρχὰς, καὶ δυνάμεις», καὺ Φοὺς 
παξοῦσυ τὰ πεοσδοχώμενα ἀγαθὰ; καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ τὰς ἠπειλημένας κολάσεις" 
καὶ Meds τούτοις τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν; καὶ τὸν αἰώνιον δάνατον᾽ καὶ δεασάμενος 
Eze τοῦτο τὸ méeos ἐλλεῖπον, ζητεῖ μὲν ἀλλο TL πξοσθειναι" οὐχ εὑξὼν dé, 
ἄλλην τοσαύτην κτίσιν καὶ πολλαπλασίαν διαπλάττειν τῷ λόγῳ᾽ καὶ οὐδὲ 
οὕτως ἐξισούμενω ταῦτα πάντα ὁξᾷ τῇ πεξὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγάπῃ «ἷ More cor- 
rectly, creature, being. 

ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης tov Θεοῦ, τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ. ‘They who before, at ver. 
35, understood the love of man to Christ, seek to explain these 
words, in compliance with that view. Now, although one may 
doubtless say, that, as in general, the way to the Father is only by 
the Son, so in like manner it is only in Christ that man can truly 
love God, still itis much more natural to suppose, that the Apostle 
means here to affirm, what is the. cardinal point of the doctrine of 
the gospel, that God has forgiven us in Christ, Eph. iv. 32, and that 
we are accepted in the beloved, Eph. i. 6. So is it elsewhere said, 
that the grace of God has been given us in Christ, 1 ‘Tim. i. 14. 
2'Tim. i. 9, and so likewise of yexororys τοῦ Θεοῦ, Eph. 11. 7. On 
the other hand, there is no parallel text on the love of man to God 
in Christ. 


* The depth, as I think, he calls hell, the height, the heavenly kingdom. 

Having weighed all nature in the scale with love towards God, and 
having with the things that are seen, connected things known only by the 
intellect, angels and principalities and powers, and with present blessings, 
those that are expected in the future, yes, and even the punishments which 
are then threatened, and in addition to these, eternal life and eternal death; 
and having perceived this part to be, as yet, defective, he seeks something 
else to add, and not finding it, fabricates with a word another creation, 
equally great and manifold, and not even thus dves he see all these things 
equalling love to God. 


CHAPTER NINTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


Wiru the eighth chapter the Apostle had terminated the doctrinal part of his 
Epistle. Henceforward to the twelfth, there follows another section, which 
we may Call a historical corollary. Were that way, which he had hitherto 
been inculcating, the only way of salvation, it followed, that the Jews, 
who still strove after blessedness, through the medium of fulfilling the law, 
would be wholly excluded from mercy. Moreover, as a much greater 
number of Gentiles than Jews were received into the church of Christ, 
there actually resulted, from Paul’s doctrine, the rejection of almost all 
the members of the Israelitish theocracy. This might appear severe. 
Accordingly Paul affirms, in the first place, That it distressed himself to 
think that the majority of Israelites should be rejected. But, nevertheless, 
that was the truth. Moreover, it cannot be objected that, in that case, the 
promise made to Abraham, of Israel being the covenant people, is left un- 
fulfilled: for the promise did not extend to αὐ the bodily descendants of 
Abraham, as such. Isaac and Ishmael, in respect of corporeal descent, 
had both been Abraham’s children; and yet, in this instance, God had 
vouchsafed the privileges to Isaac only, who was born according to Divine 
promise. With the same free will does God now act, in not receiving all 
the subjects of the Old Testament theocracy into the new kingdom of God, 
but those only who comply with the divine condition of faith in Christ, 
without relying upon their own righteousness by works. Should the Isra- 
elite object, however, that the example was inapplicable, inasmuch as Sarah 
was a holy woman and rightful wife of Abraham, whereas Hagar was not 
even a Hebrew, but proud tempered and a maid servant, we have a 
still more decisive example of God’s not binding himself to a bodily 
descent in the instance of Rebecca, who bare Jacob and Esau as twins. 
But, notwithstanding, Jacob was destined by God for the possession of 
Canaan, while Esau obtained no privilege of the kind. Inasmuch too as 
God declared his decree to this effect, even at the birth of the children, it 
might thence be likewise gathered, that not even works, on their part, ex- 
isted as condition of that decree, and, accordingly, that what he had vouch-- 
safed to Jacob, whether we look to his birth or works, he vouchsafed to 
him from the free purpose of his grace. On the other hand, however, least 
of all can it be thence inferred, that God is unjust. We must only acknow- 
ledge, Paul means to affirm, that on God’s side all is grace, while on 
ours, nota word can be said of claims of any kind whatever. It follows 
that any endeavour in our own strength to enforce certain claims (as 
Israel does bodily extraction and fulfilment of the law), to privileges from 
God, can never gain itsend. Nay,we learn from the case of Pharaoh, that by 
the divine forbearance the stubborn may be, for a certain time, endured, 
but that punishment surely overtakes them at last, and then is all the more 
severe, to the increase of the divine glory. It follows, proceeds Paul, that 
man must be content if God, recognizing no rights upon his side, accepts 
of him when he complies with the Divine conditions, aud gives others 


37 


290 CHAPTER Ix. V. 1. 


over to their obduracy. God certainly appears compassionate enough, in 
enduring the latter with patience, instead of visiting them, as they deserve, 
with instant punishment, and when, in contrast with them, he exalts to 
glory such as comply with his conditions. The persons who in this way, 
i. e. by means of conditions, prescribed by God, and independent of right- 
eousness by works, attained to salvation, are, now-a-days, believers on 
Christ, both from amongst Jews and Gentiles. Such persons, it is true, 
acquire their justification as something to which they have no kind of right 
whatever. But then, on the other hand, God imposes upon them no other 
condition than mere belief of the heart. In behalf of this new procedure, 
however strange it might seem to the Israelite, even the Old Testament 
spoke. For there were to be found there, on the one hand, passages in 
which the vocation of the heathen is announced, and, on the other, pass- 
ages wherein the prophets foretell to but an inconsiderable number of 
Jews, the grace that was tocome. Accordingly, the ground of Israel’s not 
being received into the new kingdom of God, manifestly does not lie in 
God; Israel has to attribute this rejection to itself, having wanted to receive 
pardon through efforts of its own, and upon the ground of certain rights, 
and refusing to comply with the condition laid down by God, according to 
his free purpose, viz. acquiescence with childlike faith in the redemption 
of Christ. ᾿ 


DIVISION. 


_ 


. Protestation of the Apostle, that it was a distress to himself to think that 
the rejection of the ancient covenant people as a whole follows from 
the doctrine of salvation he has been hitherto delivering. V. 1—6. 


2. God recognizes neither bodily extraction nor man’s works as a claim to 
justification. V. 6—13. 


3. God has an absolute right to impart to whom, and in what way soever he 
pleases, the tokens of his love. He is also free to prescribe conditions 
of justification, under which Gentiles, and these even in greater num- 
bers than Jews, obtain forgiveness. V. 14—24. 


4, Even the Old Testament predicts that an inconsiderable number of Jews, 
on the one hand; and on the other, that the Gentiles should be forgiven. 
V. 25—33. 


PA ea 


PROTESTATION OF THE APOSTLE, THAT IT WAS A DISTRESS TO HIMSELF 
TO THINK THAT THE REJECTION OF THE ANCIENT COVENANT PEOPLE, 
AS A WHOLE, FOLLOWS FROM THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION HE HAS 
HITHERTO BEEN DELIVERING. 


V. 1. Tue Apostle has now brought to a close the explication of 
that great message of salvation, he had announced in chap. i. 16. 
Here, then, he, as it were, looks around him, and considers in how 
far it actually effects the salvation of the sinful race. His eye meets 
the mighty company of the subjects of the Old Testament theocracy, 
which, offering as a whole, a hostile resistance to that divine scheme 


CHAPTER IX. V. 1. 291 


of salvation, seems, on that ground, to deserve total rejection. Aware, 
as Paul is, of the mournful but still indisputable truth of this inference, 
he feels himself compelled, at the close of his explication, to give 
some more notices respecting the relation of the old covenant people 
to the new scheme of salvation. He shows that they have themselves 
to blame, if the Israelites are not received; that their pride is their 
ruin, in consequence of which, they endeavour to enforce claims of 
their own, and refuse to comply with the divine purposes. He fur- 
ther shows, that already the Old ‘Testament gives intimation of the 
obduracy of the Jews, in the time of the Messiah, and likewise of the 
calling of the Gentiles, and, finally, he opens up, in the eleventh 
chapter, the prospect into a distant future, that after the majority of 
the heathen should have entered the kingdom of God, the bulk of the 
Jewish people will repent, and embrace the salvation offered in 
Jesus. With that glorious prospect, which exhibits Gentiles and 
Jews, as citizens of the kingdom of Christ, in equal glory and in- 
timate fellowship, the Apostle terminates the doctrinal part of his 
Epistle. In introducing the section now before us, he feels himself 
moved to premise the averment, how dearly he himself loves his na- 
tion. We must not suppose that this prefatory declaration of his 
attachment was the result of reflection, as if, according to the opinion 
of the majority of expositors, he had purposely introduced it, because 
the partiality of the heathen towards him might awaken suspicion of 
the sincerity of his regard for Israel, or because it was the Gentiles 
who were principally converted, and the Apostle might have been 
accused of cherishing, on that account, hatred for the Jews. It is 
much more natural to regard what he here says as the direct expres- 
sion of his feeling. 

ἐν Χριστῷ. Most interpreters, both ancient and modern, look upon 
this as a form of oath, similar to πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν», so that the sense 
would be, ‘* By the loss of Christ,’’ or, ‘As sure as Christ lives.” 
Glassius, Noldius and Schiéttgen appeal to the use of 3 in the oaths 
of the Jews. Partly, however, we find the ἐν in the forms of oath 
in the New Testament, only in cases where a verb of swearing is 
used, and partly, it may be said in general, that we have no example 
of the Apostle having, in the proper sense, sworn by Christ. Eph. 
iv. 17, where μαρτύρομαι only means exhort, adjure, and where 
there is no place for a form of oath, the ἐν κυρίῳ is to be conceived in 
the same way as we shall here immediately explain the ἐν Χριστῷ» 
viz. ‘the Lord himself being present in my mind, and moving me.” 
At 1 Tim. v. 21, the ἐνώπιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ must not be conceived as a 
form of oath, and even if it were, the χαὺ τὼν ἐκλεκτὼν ἀγγέλων Which 
is appended, would show that in this passage, it would be a quite 
peculiar exception, it having certainly been the practice neither 
among Jews nor Christians to swear by the angels. It is hence 
better and more analogous to the common use of ty Χριστῷ and ἐν 
πνεύματι ayia, that we should suppose ἐν Χριστῷ to denote the element 
in which, while he was speaking, his soul moved; as the New ‘Tes- 


292 CHAPTER Ix. Vv. l, 2. 


tament, in like manner, mentions a χαρὰ ἐν Χριστῷ and an ἀγάπη ἐν 
Χριστῷ. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 10. With the exception of ἐν Χριστῷ we 
have the same formula, 1 ‘Tim. ii. 7. Pelagius: Ostendit quidquid 
vel facit vel loquitur, in Christo eum loqui vel agere, cujus est mem- 
brum. Jac. Capellus: Cum in Christo sim, ut verax est ille, ego 
quoque vere vobis dico. So likewise Cocceius. More feebly, and 
more in the rationalist style, Clericus, who expounds the ἐν Χριστῷ» 
as a vir Christianus, whose religion forbids him to lie. 

οὐ ψεύδομαι. ‘The negation side by side with the affirmation, 
strengthens the affirmation, John i. 20. Eph. iv. 25. Sam. ti. 17. 
Precisely similar is 1 Tim. ii. 7. It is a quite perverted connection 
which Nisselt, Bolten, Koppe and Koppe’s imitator Rosenmiiller, 
adopt, according to which, the ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ is to be conjoined 
with οὐ ψεύδομαι, as form of oath; so that the ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ an- 
swers as such to the ἐν Χριστῷ. Apart from the violent construction 
which then results, it is totally undemonstrable that any Christian 
ever swore by the Holy Ghost. ‘The most natural way is to con- 
strue the ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ With συμμαρτνυξούσης. Conscience is in man 
the voice of God. In the unconverted, however, it is frequently 
darkened; as for the Christian, in him it is elevated, inasmuch as the 
Spirit of God, that new element which fills and quickens the mind 
of the converted man, penetrates also his conscience. Fr this rea- 
son, the testimony of a Christian, even when he appeals to his con- 
science, is higher than that of the man unconverted. ‘The Apostle 
writes what he writes, ἐνώπιον τοῦ @cov, Gal. 1. 20. So in particular 
Bucer. Respecting the σύν in συμμαξτυξούσης see chap. ii. 15, where 
the same formula appears. 

V. 2. The grounds of his distress Paul does not explicitly state. 
We discover them, however, from the sequel. Even if Paul had not 
said how deeply it pained him that Israel did not acknowledge her 
Lord and Saviour, we might still have been able to conceive it, by 
ealling to mind that ardent affection which the Apostle cherished for 
all the churches of his Master, and even for believers individually. 
It was not enough for the holy man, under his: many assaults from 
without and within, to remember uninterruptedly in his prayers the 
churches which himself had gathered, and which he continued to 
love as children, (1 Cor. i. 4. Phil. i.3,4. Eph.i.16. 1 Thess. 
i. 2,) he mentions without ceasing those also which, to the honour 
of Christ, had been gathered by others, nay, every individual who 
is known and related to him as a brother, (Philem. 4. 2 Tim. i. 
3, 4,) is in prayer present to hissoul. In short, he feels the sorrows 
and the joys of all the members of the great body to which he be- 
longs. ‘I bear,’’ he cries, “" the care of all the churches. Who is. 
weak and I am not weak! Who is offended and I burn not! (2 Cor. 
xi. 29.) I will give up for you very gladly, yes, my very self will 
I give up for your souls, though the more abundantly I love you, the 
less am I loved,” (2 Cor. xii. 15.) So fervent a brotherly love, 
which affectionately embraced in the Spirit, as fellow members all 


CHAPTER IX. V. 2, 3. 293 


who are engrafted into Christ, which, eager to unite the whole globe 
into one church of the Saviour, found not space enough for the ve- 
hemence of its operation in all the region from Jerusalem to Illyria, 
(Rom. xv. 19, 23,) could not but glow to incorporate into the Lord’s 
church, the peculiar people which, in its maternal bosom, had borne 
the germ of that church and brought it forth into the world. 

V. 3. This declaration of the Apostle, which has received very 
various interpretations, we shall first explain according to the sense 
which offers itself to the impartial view as the most natural and cor- 
rect. ‘The word ἀνάθεμα is originally equivalent to ἀνάθημά, as evee- 
μα and evenua, ἐπίθεμα and ἐπίθημα, (the first is the modern form of 
the word,) which ‘Theodoret observes at this passage, as he also does 
at Is. xii. and Zeph. i. (Lobeck, Phryn. p. 446) and denotes some- 
thing separated from common use. Afterwards, however, ἀνάθημα 
came to be taken in the better sense of ‘*something specially set 
apart for the gods,’ and ἀνάθεμα in the worse, of ‘*something set 
apart from common use on account of its vileness,’’ although the two 
meanings are sometimes exchanged. Similar is the usage in Latin, 
according to which, sacer signifies execrabilis and intestabilis. It is 
thus that with many others, Hesychius also draws the distinction. 
Now, as the word oecurs both in profane authors and in the Hel- 
lenists, a further question arises, as to whether it is here used with 
the reference it bears in the Greek, or with that which it bears in the 
Hebrew usus loquendi. Among the Greeks it is equivalent to xa- 
Oagua and περίψημα. ‘These are expressions which, it is well known, 
were applied to such persons as were offered for a public atonement; 
upon whom accordingly, the reproach and guilt of all men were in a 
manner transferred. Suidas: Οὕτως ἐπέλεγον τῷ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν συνέ- 
χοντυ τῶν καχὼν, πεξίψημα ἡμῶν γένου, ἤτου σωτηξία καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις. καὶ 
ἐνέβαλον τῇ θαλάσσῃ: ὡσανεὶ τῷ ἹἸΠοσειδῶνυ θυσίαν ἀποτινύοντες. Such 
persons were Meneceus, Codrus, Curtius, the Decii. Compare also 
what Servius on Virgil, Aun. |. HII. v. 56, says of the atonement which 
was required to be made among the Massilians yearly, by casting 
aman into the sea. ‘To illustrate the expiatory death of Christ, even 
Origen appealed to the idea universally spread among the heathen, 
that the guilt of many might be devolved upon one. Origen, ο. Cel- 
sum, |. I. ο. 31. In the New Testament, however, this idea seems’ 
neither to lie in ἀνάθεμα, nor 1 Cor. iv. 13, in περίψημα. For in that 
passage, πεξίψημα has the more general meaning of ‘*men con- 
temptible,”’ as is clear from the context. In those texts where ἀνά- 
θεμα elsewhere occurs, Acts xxili. 14. 1 Cor, xii. 3; xvi. 22; Gal. 
i. 8, 9, the Greek use of the term, which we have quoted, is either 
wholly inadmissible, or at least merely figurative. (Comp. Winer, 
N. T. Gram. s. 20.) Now as it is likewise more probable that, in 
general, Paul adopted the Jewish use of the word, we make no 
scruple here also to ascribe the same to the ἀνάθεμα. In the LXX. 
ἀνάθεμα answers to the Hebrew 097 and ἀναθεματίζω, aS also dvari- 
Onur, to the verb ONT. Now, the Hebrew word ow, derived from 


294 CHAPTER IX. V. 3. 


a root found in the Arabic, signifying arcere, denotes equally the 
setting apart of men, or beasts, or cities for Jehovah. Such separated 
things or beings, were afterwards, in consequence thereof, annihilated 
or slain, and hence Ὁ, Zech. xiv. 11, has the sense curse of de- 
struction, and Ὁ ΓΙ per met. effect. pro causa, that of to annihilate. 
Were we then to derive the common meaning of ἀνάθεμα from this 
old Hebrew one, it might signily, ‘“*one devoted to extermination; 
and Paul, to say the thing i in other words, would be prepared to suf- 
fer death for his brethren. ᾿Ανάθεμα would thus be equivalent to “2 
wx, 1 Kings xx. 42, which the LXX. rightly translate dvSea ὀλέθριον. 
In that case we might compare with Paul’s declaration, 2 Cor. xii. 
15. ‘This is the sense actually given to the ἀνάθεμα by Jerome, 
Quest. 9, ad Algas. and Hilary ad Ps, 8, among the ancients, and 

among the moderns, by Justinian, Beausobre, Elsner, Zeger, Am- 
mon and others. In opposition to it, however, Chrysostom, even in 
his day, remarks generally, that it is too flat. ‘Those, says the 
bishop, commenting with holy indignation upon the passage, who 
here suppose corporeal death to be meant, τῆς σφοδρότητος τῆς ἐκείνου 
πόῤῥω καὶ paxeay ἑστήκασιν. ὃ γὰρ χαθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέξαν ἀποθνήσκων; καὶ 
νιφάδας κινδύνων θεὶς, καὶ εἰπὼν, τίς ἡμὰς χωρφίσευ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ 
Χεριστοῦ; Hades, ἢ στενοχωρία; ἢ λιμός, ἢ διωγμός: xal οὐχ ἀδφκεσθεὶς τοῖς 
λεχθεῖσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερβὰς τὸν οὐξανὸν, καὶ τὸν οὐξανὸν τοῦ οὐξανοῦ; καὶ ἀγγέ- 
λους καὶ ἀδρχαγγέλους» XAL πάντα τὼ ἄνω περξιδραμὼν, καὶ συλλαβὼν ὁμοῦ τὰ 
παρόντα; τὰ μέλλοντα; τὰ ὁρώμενα: τὰ νοούμενα, τὰ λυπηξὰ, τὰ χρηστὰ, 
καὶ οὐδὲν ὅλως ἀφεὶς, χαὶ οὐδὲ οὕτω χοδεσθεὶς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑτέξαν τοσαύτην 
κτίσιν τὴν οὐκ οὖσαν ὑποστησάμενος, πὼς ὡς μέγα τὰ λέγων μετ᾽ ἐχεῖνα 
πάντα, θανάτου τοῦ πξοσκαΐρου ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀνἢ But the chief argument 
against it is, that if we suppose this exposition, the ἀπὸ Xevorov sus- 
tains no suitable interpretation. For in that case, one would be 
forced to take ἀπό in the rarer sense of ὑπό, and Christ would be re- 
garded as the author of the death. ‘Then might the Rabbinical usus 
Joquendi be compared, in which “3 ΝΟΣ is a customary formula. 
This addition, would, however, be here all too trifling; and even 
were it not, it still would be impossible to explain why the Apostle 
will have himself condemned to death by Christ, and not much rather 
by God. Or again we must, with Elsner and Carpzov, connect 
ἀπὸ Xevstow with ηὐχόμην, Which, however, would be a very unusual 
Latinism (petere ab aliquo; in Greek εὔχεσθαυ τῷ Θεῷ OF meds τὸν 


*,.... stand far from his vehemence. For he who died daily, who sup- 
posing dangers numberless, exclaimed: Who shall separate us from the love 
of Christ? “Shall tribulation or distress, or famine, or persecution? who, not 
being satisfied with this when said, but going beyond heaven and the heaven 
of heavens, and angels and archangels, ‘and “enumerating all things that are 
above, and collecting into one, things present and things future, the seen and 
the imagined, all that grieves, and all that profits, and having omitted nothing, 
is not even then satisfied, but, supposing another creation of equal magnitude 
and not existing, how would he, meaning to say something great, after all 
these things, mention death temporal? 


CHAPTER LX. V. 3. 295 


Θεὸν.) This construction would be in itself harsh, and one would 
just as little be able to understand why the Apostle annexed the ad- 
dition. We accordingly prefer giving ἀνάθεμα, a meaning which the 
corresponding 01M, in the more modern Hebrew or Rabbinical dialect, 
possesses, and which likewise predominates in all the New Testa- 
ment texts in which it occurs. Among the Rabbins, to wit, 07n de- 
notes a bann, by which a person was excluded from company, from 
frequenting the synagogue, and from other privileges. This signifi- 
eation might grow out of that it bears in the Old ‘Testament, and 
already, Ezra x. 8, mention is made of the Ὁ over the property of 
a transgressor in connection with his exclusion from the nan Dap. 
The later Rabbins distinguish three kinds of bann. ‘The first and 
lightest degree was 113 (seclusio). It consisted in a removal to the 
distance of four ells, from all the members of the family, and lasted a 
month. The second degree was ὉΠ. With the individual standing 
under this, no one was allowed to learn, or deal, to eat or drink. 
Admission into the synagogue was also prohibited to him. (Accord- 
ing to the ‘Talmudic ‘Tract, Middot, it is true, they might enter the 
temple, but this was probably only into the atrium gentium, into 
which even the impure might come.) ‘he third degree of the ex- 
communication was called ΝΠ (compare upon the etymology of 
this word, Jost Geschichte der Israeliten, Th. 3, s. 150.) By it, 
exclusion from divine worship and intercourse with men forever was 
imposed. RK. Solomo says, ‘* Whosoever lies under the bann Scham- 
matha, is like fat spread upon a hot furnace, it dries up and returns 
no more.” How fearful a thing excommunication was among the 
Jews, appears from the form of bann in Buxtorff’s Lexicon Talm. p. 
828, which inspires horror to read. Many more of the kind are to 
be found in Imbonati’s Bibl. Rabb. p. 450. Does the ἀνάθεμα here, 
accordingly, denote a person cursed with the bann, then is the ἀπό 
also to be very naturally taken up as designating the terminus, as 
Gal. v. 4, κατηέγηθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Now the Χειστός is by 
several expositors taken metonymically, to denote the body of Christ, 
i.e. the church. So Grotius, Hammond, Selden and others. Like- 
wise Theodoret, not here, indeed, but yet at 1 Cor. xvi. 22, where 
the ἀνάθεμα is explained: ἀλλότριος ἔστω τοῦ xowor σώματος τῆς ἐχκλη- 
σίας. Much would depend upon whether Xecords, without any ad- 
juncet, ever stands for ἡ ἐκκλησία Χριστοῦ. The text, 1 Cor. xii. 12, is 
not sufficient to prove this; for there Xecords does not directly signify 
the church itself, but Christ dwelling in the church. Hence, even 
supposing Paul to speak of separation from the church, that would 
still be equally a separation from the blessings of grace that are in 
Christ. In this manner, the present view does not really differ from 
the most ancient, which understands by Χριστός, Christ himself, fel- 
lowship with him, and all the blessings of salvation to be found in 
that fellowship. So Origen, Chrysostom, ‘Theodoret, Gicumenius, 
Calvin, Bucer, Witsius, Bengel and others. Admirably do the fol- 
lowing explanations speak of the love which is here expressed by 


296 CHAPTER IX. VY. 3. 


St. Paul. Chrysostom: xai yde πελάγους παντὸς εὐρυτέφα; καὶ proyos 
ἁπάσης σφοδροτέξα ἦν αὕτη ἡ ἀγάπη, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτὴν κατ᾽ αξίαν ἀναγο- 
ξεῦσαι δυνήσεται λόγος, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχεινος μόνος οἷδεν αὐτὴν ὃ μετὰ ἀχριβείας αὖ- 
τὴν χτηπάμενος.Ὁ Photius: ὃν οὐδὲν δύναταυ χωρίσαν τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, ov ϑάνατος ἀπειλούμενος, οὐ ζωή προτεινομένη οὐ τὼ EXELOEV UMAWS, 
οὐ τὰ ἐνταῦθα, οὐχ᾽ ὅπερ ἂν τις ἐπινοησῃ» ὃν τοίνυν οὐδὲν χωφίσαν δύναταυ, 
πὼς αὐτὸς ἑκουσίως ἀφίσταται; τί οὖν ἐστὶ τοῦτο; πῶς συμβήσεταν τὰ ἀσύμ- 
Bata; πρῶτον μέν φαμεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα ἐναντία. οὐ γὰρ ἐστὶν ἔναν- 
τίον τὸ dyangy τὸν Χριστὸν οὕτως ὥστε μήτε διὰ κολάσεως μήτε δὺ ὑποσ- 
χέσεως πάσης ἀφίστασθαι τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν τὸν πλησίον 
οὕτως; ὥστε τὴν σωτηξίαν αὐτῶν Lony καὶ μείζονα τῆς ἰδίας ἡγεῖσθαν σωτη- 
δίας, οὔχουν ταῦτα ἐναντίαν ἀλλὰ χαὶ μάλλον συνάδοντα. ὃ yae ἀγαπὼν 
ἀδελφὸν αὐτοὺ, ἀγαπᾷ χαὶ τὸν δεσπότην καὶ ἔμπαλιν. val, φησί τις» ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐνταῦθα προχρίνει τὴν Tov πλησίου ἀγάπην τῇ πξὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ EVYST AL 
ἔχεινον ἀπαρνήσασθαι τοὺ ἐκείνους κεόδῆσαι. Ὃ δὲ Χειστός φησιν" ὃ Φιλῶν 
πατέρα ἡ μητέξα brie ἐμὲ, οὐκ ἔστι mov ἀξιος. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἔστι τοῦτο φιλειν 
ὑπὲρ τὸν Χριστὸν. τί γὰρ ἦν τὸ φιλεῖν Exevvovs; τὸ οἰχειῶσαυ αὐτοὺς τῷ 
Χεριστῷ. πῶς οὖν ἐστὶ φιλεῖν ἐκείνους ὑπὲς τὸν Χριστὸν, ὅπου χἀκείνους 
εἰς τὴν φιλίαν χαὶ ὑπαχοὴν ἑλκύσαι ἔσπευδε TOV Χριστοῦ.....«καὺ γὰρ Stio- 
τάμενος 11. ὑπὲξ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χειστοὺ xat τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τὼν Ἰουδαίων ἑνώ- 
σεως, ῥᾷον πάλιν ἥνουτο XAL συνήπτετο; WOME τις πῶλος μιχξὸν τῆς μητεὸς 
ἀποσπασθεὶς. καὶ οὕτως πάλιν αὐτός τε ἐσώζετο, καὶ ὃ Χριστὸς Ene πλέον ἐδοξά- 
ζετο, καὶ τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθνος ἐσώζετο, καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἐπαγγελίαν εἰς πέρας 
ἠέχοντο. μᾶλλον δὲ οὕτως διϊστάμενος οὐ διίστατο; ἀλλὰ πλέον ἥνοῦτο. ἢ οὐ 
δοχεῖ cov ὁτε Τιμόθεον περιέτεμνεν, ὅτε αὐτὸς ἡγνίσατο; OTE τὰ TOV νόμον 
ἐτέλει τὴν χάριν κηρύσσων; ὅτι τξύπον τινὰ πρὸς τὴν χάξιν ἐδόχευ διίστασ- 
θαι καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἐναντιοῦυσθαὶ; ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε διίστατο, οὔτε ἑαυτῷ ἠναντιοῦτο. 
ὑπὲρ γὰξ τῆς χάριτος καὶ Tov προσαγαγεῖν πάντας τῷ Χριστῷ κχκαὺ ταῦτα 
xai τάλλα πάντα ἔπραττεν. Bengel: Verba humana non sunt plane 


* For broader than every sea, and keener than every flame, was that love, 
and no language is able worthily to express it. But he alone who really pos- 
sesses, knows what it 15. 

{ Paul, whom nothing is able to separate from the love of God, neither 
death threatened, nor life promised, nor things beyond, nor things on this side 
the grave, nor whatsoever a man may conceive. If then nothing be able to 
separate him, whence comes it that he voluntarily deserts. What is this? 
How shall things discordant be reconciled? First we say, that these two 
things are not inconsistent. For to love Christ in such a way, as neither by 
any punishment nor yet promise, to renounce his love, is not contrary to 
loving our neighbours so strongly as to reckon their salvation equal or supe- 
rior to one’s own. So far are these things from being inconsistent, that they 
are rather harmonious. For whosoever loves his neighbour, loves also the 
Master, and the contrary. Yes, says some one, but here he prefers the love 
of our neighbours to the love of God, and prays that he may be denied the 
former for the sake of gaining them; whereas Christ says: He that loveth 
father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. To love them, however, 
in that way is not to love them more than Christ. For what was the loving 
of them? Itconsisted in conciliating them to Christ. How then is it loving 
them more than Christ, when he endeavours to draw them into the friendship 
and “obedience of Christ. For Paul being divided regarding the glory of 


CHAPTER IX. V. 3. 297 


apta, quibus includantur motus animarum sanctarum, neque semper 
iidem sunt motus illi neque in earum potestate est, tale semper votum, 
ex sese elicere. Non capit hoc anima non valde provecta. De 
mensura amoris in Mose (Ex. xxxii. 32), et Paulo non facile est 
existimare. Eum enim modulus ratiocinationum nostrarum non 
eapit, sicut heroum bellicorum animos non capit parvulus. Apud 
ipsos illos duumviros intervalla illa, que bono sensu extatica dici 
possint, subitum quiddam et extraordinarium fuere. Witsius: Per- 
suasus sum, non esse illos harum rerum estimatores, qui cogitationes 
suas longe supra illius, que plerumque obtinet et landari solet, chari- 
tatis teporem extollere non didicerunt. Si quis quaodammodo saltem 
divini amoris raptus expertus est, is demum rite cognoscet, omnia 
sic amartis vota ef verba ad vivum resecanda non esse. Such is in- 
deed the case. ‘The objections which have been brought against this 
portentosus amor, as Bucer styles it, arises all from a cool way of 
contemplating it, which altogether forgets what a loving heart, in the 
fervour of its passion, is capable of uttering. Just as little, accord- 
ingly, can we bring ourselves to suppose that Paul has merely applied 
a proverbial mode of speech, common among Eastern nations. ‘The 
Arabians, for instance, in order to express a strong affection. use 
words which signify ‘* My soul is the ransom of thine.” Compare 
Caab, Ben Zohair, ed. Lette Lugd. Bat. 1748, p. 97, and Schulten’s 
zu Harvirii consessus, Franeq. 1731, p. 83. Maimonides, zu San- 
hedrin, fol. 18, 1, in explanation of the ‘Talmudic phrase, 4793 
‘raw, ‘Behold I am thy ransom, atonement,” remarks, that it is a 
common expression of love. Even the grave manner, however, in 
which St. Paul introduces his words, does not permit us to suppose a 
mere proverbial form of speech; which, moreover, becomes so much 
the less possible, when we do not understand by ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ Xecorov, 
the death of Paul. Upon ἀνάθεμα in this passage, compare further 
Witsius’ very learned treatise, Miscellanea Sacra, T. 11., and De 
Prado Obs. Selecte, ed. Fabric. Hamb. 1712, a. h. 1. We now ad- 
vance to the exposition of the remaining words, which will bring to 
view still another and different conception of the passage. 

inte τῶν ἀδελφῶν. We may take the ove in its narrower meaning 
of instead, in the room of. ‘The dictionary Baal Aruch, introduces 
under 73, the form common among the Rabbins, 19793 13, and re-, 
marks that it signifies the same as My 7304, yaIpoa yw “" Behold, 


Christ, and the union of the Jews in him, was easily again united and recon- 
ciled, like some colt separated a little from its mother; and thus himself again 
was saved, and Christ was the more glorified, and the Jewish nation was 
saved, and the covenants and promises attained their destination. ‘hus di- 
vided, it was rather no division but a closer union. Or think you not, when 
he circumcised Timothy, and when he purified himself, and when he fulfilled 
the requirements of the law, while preaching grace, that he seemed, in some 
way, to be divided in regard to grace, and to oppose himself. But neither the 
one nor the other was the case, because it was for the sake of grace, and 
in order to lead all to Christ, that he did these and every thing else. 


38 


298 CHAPTER IX. Y. 3, 4. 


here am ἴ in his place, to bear his guilt.”” According to the usus 
loquendi familiar to them in the application of that formula, the ixée 
must have the meaning of substitution. In Greek usage, also ὑπές 
in conjunction with περικάθαρμα; had entirely the same. Witsius, 
de Prado, Bengel call attention to the fact, that the Jews ought espe- 
cially to be excluded from the kingdom of Christ, and hence, that if 
Paul wished in their stead to be exiled from Christ, the szge must be 
taken in the vicarious sense. We think it more advisable, however, 
not to urge this sense of ixée, but to take it in the more general one 

of, “ for the good of.” 

τῶν ovyyevav μον κατὰ σάρχα. (According to DE FS, τῶν xara 
oaexa.) ‘This expresses in how far the Israelites are dear to him, as 
possessed of human feelings, while ver. 4 and 5, show in how far 
they interest him as a believer. In the appended κατὰ odexa, odes 
has the sense of bodily extraction, in contrast with a connection of 
a spiritual kind. Ἡὐχόμην. The Vulgate, Cyprian, Ambrose, Pela- 
gius, Bucer, Heumann and others translate it in Latin by the imperf. 
indic., and thence arises one way more of expounding the verse, dif- 
ferent from those which we have hitherto stated. Pelagius, for 
instance, and others after him, explain: Optabam aliquando, cum 
prosequerer Christum. ‘The connection which the sentence, thus ex- 
plained, must have with what precedes, is then as follows: “1 have 
(at the end of the 8th chapter), so affectingly, and in all its greatness, 
described the love of Christ to us (or as Heumann insists, my love 
to Christ), that 1 cannot avoid adding how much it distrésdte me to 
have once cherished the desire for my brethren’s sake, of continuing 
separated by a bapn from him.’ ‘The explanation, however, totally 
rends asunder the connection. Such a declaration of his grief, more- 
over, if once it be viewed in immediate connection with the close of 
the 8th chapter, would be greatly too much sundered from the last 
verse of that chapter. ‘The whole following description, given in 
ver. 4 and 5 of the prerogatives of the Israelites, would then be with- 
out any proper object. And just as needless would the more minute 
defining of ἀνάθεμα by the ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφὼν μον appear. We shall, 
therefore, be more correct in rendering the imper. by the conjunct. 
I could wish. In truth the imp. ind. is just what expresses the im- 
possibility of the object which is wished, for which reason it is not 
perfectly wished, whereas the optative admits the possibility of the 
object wished, and the present presupposes its certainty. Compare 
Gal. iv. 20, Ἐπ Winer Gramm. Excurse, s. 90. 

αὐτὸς ἐγὼ. Erasmus: Ipse qui tantum laboriarim, ne sejungar a 
Christo. ‘Theodoret: Σφόδρα ἁρμοδίως παρενέθηχε χαὶ τὸ αὑτὸς ἐγὼ, τῶν 
ἤδη περὺ τῆς ἀγάπης τῆς περὺ τὸν “Χριστὸν εἰρημένων ἀναμιμνήσκων.ἢ 

V. 4. Having in ver. 3, expressed by th® τὼν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ 
capxa, how even human sensibilities moved him to a special love for 


* And very aptly has he added the αὐτὸς ἐγὼ, calling to remembrance what 
he had said of love to Christ. 


CHAPTER IX. V. 4. 299 


the Jews, he now states how every disciple of Christ must be kindled 
to alike regard for this people, by the peculiar place which they 
occupy in the economy of salvation, as the channel of the light 
vouchsafed by God to man. ‘The privileges of the Israelites, here 
specified by Paul, are, however, of a sort not founded upon their 
merits, but upon the free grace of God. Chrysostom: éxecva τίθησιν; 
ἅπερ τῆς Tov Θεοῦ δωρεᾶς ἐστιν ἐνδεικτικὰ μόνον, οὐκ ἐκείνων éyxduca.* 

᾿Ισραηλίται.Ϊ ‘This name is honourable, referring back to that 
which the father of the race had received from God himself, Striver 
with God, Gen. xxxii.29. ‘Thus it is joined, as a peculiarly lauda- 
tory epithet, with oxéeua "ABeadu, 2 Cor. xi. 22, and there, as well 
as at Phil. ili. 5, used side by side with ‘Egegatos. ‘Theodoret: Ἣν 
τοῦτο τὺ ὄνομα καθάπερ τις XANES εἰς τοὺς ἐκγόνους παξαπεμφθέν. 

ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία. While God declared Israel to be his peculiar pos- 
session (0730), in which he was himself king, Israel could also boast 
on its side of a childship, i. e. a closer relationship to God. Hence 
God is also called the Father of the subjects of the theocracy, (Deut. 
xxxii. 6,) and the Israelites, his Children (Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii. 5). 
As the whole Israelitish theocracy, however, only outwardly prefi- 
gures what the new covenant inwardly bestows, so also is this viode- 
ova of the Israelite, merely an external reception into childship, along 
with which, the πνεῦμα δουλείας (ch. vill. 14), still continued inwardly 
to exist. Compare Gal. iv. 1. 

καὶ ἡ δόξα. ‘The simplest explanation to be given of this word is, 
that it is either to be regarded as an epexegesis of υἱοθεσία, or as 
forming with it a hendiadis. The reception of the Israelites to child- 
ship conferred upon them glorious privileges, so that it might justly 
be styled viodecta τῆς δόξης. ‘Thus do Origen, Theodoret, Chrysos- 
tom, Anselm, Hunnius, Calov and others understand it. Still δόξα 
may also, per meton. effect. pro causa denote the ark of the covenant, 
which, 1 Sam. iv. 21. 22, is called Ν᾽ 1122. So Calvin, Grotius, 
Koppe. Or, what would have still more in its favour, the δοξα 
might here intimate that visible appearance of God, which, in the 
Old Testament, is called the * 1123. According to the account of 
the Old Testament, God does not himself appear, but is manifested 
by a being, which is conceived, sometimes with more, sometimes 
with less personality. Usually as the representative of Jehovah, 
appears the angel of God, » 1879, (compare upon this subject the 
able treatise of Vitringa, Observ. Sacre, ‘Tom. Il. De Angelo Sa- 
cerdote,) who, as such, is identified with Jehovah, Gen. xvi. 17; 
wherewith compare ver. 13, Gen. 111. 11, wherewith compare ver. 
16. Exod. iii. 2, compare ver. 4, particularly Exod. xxxiv. 5, and 
xxxill. 19, ‘The same personage who, Exod. xxxii. 34; xxxiii. 12, 


* He brings forward things which serve to indicate God’s free gift, not 
encomiums of them. 
+ This name was, as it were, a heritage transmitted to posterity. 


300 CHAPTER Ix. v. 4. 


was called the angel of God, is, Ex. xxxili. 14, called God’s pre- 
sence. Nay, Is. |xiv.9, mention is made of an angel of his presence. 
According to another and less substantiating conception, this revealer 
of God is represented as his glory, inasmuch as the glory, the irra- 
diation from a being, intimates, equally as much, the coming forth of 
that being from his concealment, as does the unveiling of the face. 
The glory of God appears as Jehovah’s representative, principally 
in the eloud which covered the ark of the covenant, and from which 
God spake to Moses (Ex. xl. 34, 35, Lev. ix. 6. Exod. xxv. 22). 
And, in truth, this dweéling, as R. Bechai says, (Buxt. De Arca 
Foed. c. 10, p. 109,) is not to be conceived as a restriction of the 
Divine presence, but it is like some cave upon the shore, being filled 
with water, which does not make the sea the less. But even apart 
from that, when God’s appearing is mentioned, it is always the ap- 
pearing of his 1122, which is spoken of. Ez.i.28; x.4. 1 Kings viii. 
10. ‘The Targum, in fine, always employs δ ΠΣ as periphrasis 
for God, and likewise the LXX. in several passages which mention 
God’s appearance (Is. vi. 1), have δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ, though there be not 
the corresponding 1122 in Hebrew. Now, that Paul here means to 
attribute to the Israelites, as a peculiar privilege, their participation 
in those theophanies, is the opinion of ‘Thos. Aquinas, Beza, Justi- 
nian, Turretin, Heumann and many others. And, certainly, a privi- 
lege this was; still, however, it could not be well said of the appear- 
ing of the Divine being, that it was a property of the Israelites, in 
the same way as the other things which Paul here describes, and the 
more so, that the second temple, according to the express avowal of 
the Jews, was destitute of the Shekinah. It is to be added, that sup- 
posing δόξα to signify the Hebrew * 1122, we should desiderate the 
addition of τοῦ Θεοῦ, unless, indeed, we were to assume that the Apos- 
tle has here copied, not the Hebrew expression, but the Chaldaie, in 
which sn32v stands absoluté. On the grounds stated, we prefer 
keeping by the first-mentioned explanation, according to which δόξα 
denotes, in general, the noble distinctions of the people of God. 

at διαθῆχαι. If man had invented the idea of a covenant made by 
the Infinite being, with a creature of the dust, like himself, it would 
have been the height of boldness and presumption. Now, that it 
has been vouchsafed, on the part of God, it deserves of all things to 
be most adored. From Noah downwards, all the patriarchs obtained 
the distinction of these διαθήκαις and hence it is, that here the plural 
is used, as Eph. ii. 12. Origen wilh have it, that the διαθῆκαι, are 
the several renewals of the assurance of God’s mercy through the 
prophets. It may be said, at least, that these are not excluded. But 
very unsuitable does the explanation of Beza and Grotius appear, 
that διαθῆκαι Stands per met. for the tables of the covenant, for in that 
case, the νομοθεσία would be superfluous. 

ἡ νομοθεσία. ‘I'he word is used, even by profane authors, as equi- 
valent to νόμος. So also 2 Mace. vi. 23. ‘The law they possessed, 


CHAPTER Ix. V. 4, 5. 301 


distinguished Israel above other nations, and made them an object of 
envy, Deut. iv. 5, 6. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. Comp. Rom. ii. 18, 19, 20; 
vii. 20. 

ἡ naresia. Theodoret: ἡ νομικὴ tepoveyva. Origen: Sacerdotalia 
officia. It corresponds with M712), Exod. xxxv. 24; xxx. 17. In 
the Talmudie tract, Pirke Avoth, c. 1, 7 and 7702p are, in like 
manner, found side by side. We read: Simon the Just said, By 
three things does the world subsist, by the TWA by the M712y, and by 
the pon ΠΥ 7). Grotius erroneously wished to restrict the word 
chiefly to the Paschal Lamb. 

αἱ ἐπαγγελία. Some, as Justinian, Grotius, Carpzov, will 
have it to be equivalent with εὐλογίαι, 572, and refer it to the pro- 
mises which were held out to the fulfilment of the law. But the 
sense is then feeble. ᾿Επαγγελίαι, even in the plural, denotes not 
unfrequently (Rom. xv. 8. Gal. iil. 16. Heb. xi. 13, 17, 33) pro- 
mises; and well may we here more particularly understand, as we 
do, ch. iii. 2, under λόγια, the predictions relative to the time of the 
Messias. 

V.5. The Apostle is concerned to place, in a strong light, the 
privileges of the Israelites, in order to justify his love for them, In 
doing so, however, their guilt was likewise rendered the more mani- 
fest. Ambrose: Tanta preconia nobilitatis Juadeorum enumerat, ut 
omnibus pro his dolorem incutiat, quia, non recipiendo salvatorem, 
prerogativam patrum et promissionis meritum perdiderunt, pejores 
gentilibus facti. Propensius enim malum est dignitatem perdidisse 
quam non habuisse. Jerome, qu. x.ad Alg.: Christus iste tantus ac 
talis, ab eis non recipitur, de quorum stirpe generatus est. In qui- 
bus igitur tanta fuerunt bona, dolet cur nune tanta mala sunt. 

τὯν of πατέρες. God resolved to impart the promises to the patri- 
archs. With them, accordingly, the whole glory of the Messias 
was connected (Rom. xi. 28). Although all distinguished men of 
the Old Testament were styled πατέρες (Sirach xliv. the title and ver. 
1. Soalso is David called πατὴρ», Acts ii. 29), still it is more pro- 
bable, that the appellation here refers, in its narrower sense, solely 
to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom the promises were made, and 
by whom God condescended to name himself, Ex. iii. 13, where he 
is called oD. WAN TIN. Compare Matt. xxii. 32. / 

xat ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ oapxa. This is the greatest mark of Di- 
vine favour of which Israel was deemed worthy. ‘The Messias him- 
self sprang from their race. Calvin: Neque enim nihil estimandum 
est cognatione carnali cum mundi servatore cohaerere: nam si hono- 
ravit universum hominum genus, quum se nature communione nobis 
copulavit, multo magis eos, quibuscum habere voluit arctum conjunc- 
tionis vinculum. Upon xara σάρκα; as used respecting the Messias, 
compare Rom. i. 43. 

ὁ ὧν ent πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ᾿Δμήν. If, with- 
out having previously formed any doctrinal opinion, we examine 
this expression exegetically, it will appear that Christ himself is 


302 CHAPTER IX. V. D. 


styled Θεὸς éat πάντων. ‘That construction presenting itself as next 
at hand, we shall first develope. ‘The participle with the article sup- 
plies the place of the verb. fin. with the relative, which is often the 
case, (John i. 18: iil. 13; xii. 17, particularly, however, 2 Cor. xi. 
31, where, in similar connection, stands: 6 Θεὸς χαὶ πατὴξ τοῦ Κυρίον 
ἡμῶν οἶδεν, 6 ὧν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας); it is accordingly to be re- 
solved into ὅς ἐστι, as the Syriac interpreter does. It was just here 
that the Apostle had occasion to say the utmost that could be said, of 
the Messias, for he was desirous of showing the Jews what an un- 
speakable token of grace it was to them, that they stood in so close 
a relation to the Divine Saviour. It requires to be added, that the 
foregoing χατὰ σάρκα, aS Origen and Theodoret observe, entails here, 
just as at Rom. i. 3, a description of the higher element in Christ. 
‘The ἐπὶ πάντων is intended to define more minutely the Θεός», show- 
ing as it does, that Paul means to put Christ on an equality with him 
who alone is true God, with the almighty Jehovah himself. In He- 
brew, M828 ΠΝ and “Ww, just as among the writers of the New 
‘Testament, (in the Revelation,) the word ὁ παντοκράτωρ answering 
in the LXX. to both of these, are designations of the only true God. 
It would doubtless answer this purpose better, if Θεὸς had the arti- 
cle; still, however, even when it does denote the true God, and espe- 
cially when it is a predicate, Θεός stands often without the article, 
(John i. 6, 13,18; iii. 2. 2Cor. 1. 21.) In the present case, more- 
over, owing to the preceding 6 ὧν, the article could not well be placed. 
There is far less to recommend the explanation of Beza, Limborch 
and others, according to which πάντων is masculine, and is to be re- 
ferred to the Fathers, over whom Christ is exalted. We require to 
put a comma before εὐλογητός. It was a pious practice of the Jews, 
upon mentioning the name of the Most High God, and particularly 
when they spoke of peculiar tokens of his grace, to append to it a 
doxology. So Paul, Gal. i. 5. 2Cor. xi. 31. ‘They likewise did 
so more especially, when they noticed the blasphemies of others 
against God’s name. See Rom. i. 25. We are thus enabled to ex- 
plain, how, among the later Jews, instead of using the name of God, 
the periphrasis w7=pn 87 P23, is common. Nay, even in the New 
Testament, we find ὃ εὐλογητός as periphrastic appellation of God, 
Mark xiv. 61. This doxology, then, which elsewhere is addressed 
to God only, (Luke i. 68. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet.i.3, and the passages 
already quoted,) manifests that the Saviour is connected in indissolu- 
ble unity with God; according to Paul, partakes equal honour with 
Him. Asa parallel, may be compared Rev. v. 13, where the same 
lofty doxology is made to the Lamb as to God the Most High, 2 Pet. 
iii. 18. Now, it might be objected, that it is contrary to the creed 
of Paul, to place Christ upon an entire equality in being and power 
with the Father. ‘This, however, is by no means the fact. It is 
true, indeed, that according to this Apostle’s doctrine, God the Father 
is the basis of all being. ‘There is One God only as the fountain of 
existence, 1 Cor. viii. 6. (John v. 26, it is said, according to the 


eed 


CHAPTER IX. V. 5. 303 


saine view, that the Father hath given power to the Son to have life 
in himself.) The Son is only the image of his being, Col. i. 15. 
2Cor. iv. 4. (The ἀπαύγασμα Heb. i. 8, is the same with the εἰκών 
here used by Paul.) Still, even as the image of the Divine Being, 
the Son is in no respect different from the Father, but is perfectly 
expressive of the Being of God. According to the definition of the 
Church, the ἀγεννεσία is the sole quality which the Father alone pos- 
sesses. In the Son dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, 
Col. ii. 9. He has ἴσα τῷ Θεῷ, Phil. ii. 6. In 1 Tim. iv. 10, the 
reading ὃς is undoubtedly the more correct, but the Son is expressly 
called Θεός, ‘Tit. i. 3; ii. 18, Accordingly, the Son is also an object 
of adoration to all angels and men, Phil. ii. 10. It is impossible to 
quote 1Cor. vill. 6, as a contradictory passage, for the xvevorgs, 
which pre-eminently belongs to Christ, as the revealer of the hidden 
Deity, as the Lord of that realin of Spirits, united into a Divine Com- 
monwealth, just as little excludes the ϑεότης, as the δεότης does the 
xvevorns. Neither does 1 Cor. xv. 22—29, disprove the equality of 
Christ’s divine nature with the Father; for in this passage, just as in 
1 Cor. viii. 6, it is not the Divine nature of Christ merely which 
is spoken of, but his entire person, as God and man, who then 
delivers up his lordship to the Father, when the Redemption 
has become subjectively the portion of sinful humanity, and the life 
of God pervades the total mass of the believing species. Hence Au- 
gustine observes correctly upon that passage, De Trin. 1 I. ¢. 8: 
Christus in quantum Deus est, nos cum illo subjectos habet, in quan- 
tum sacerdos, nobiscum illi subjectus est. Accordingly, what Paul 
teaches respecting the relation of the Son to the Father, and that of 
the εὐχών τοῦ Θεοῦ in union with humanity, to God himself, is per- 
fectly consistent with the doctrine of John. (Compare the excellent 
work: Kleuker, Johannes Petrus und Paulus als Christologen. Riga, 
1785.) Nay, it can be demonstrated, that the Jewish theology, in 
the centuries after Christ, in like manner assumed and taught the 
identity in person of the Messias with God. On the one hand, the 
Messias was described by these theologians, asa holy human being, 
who should be raised from the state of humiliation to the state of 
exaltation, (Maii Theol. Jud. loc. VIII. § 12. Martini Pugio fidei. 
passim,) on the other, as the Shekinah itself, (Sommeri Theologia , 
Soharica, Thesis VIII. p. 35 et 38,sqq. Bertholdt, Christologia, p. 
132 et 133.) According to the doctrine of the Book Sohar, whose 
composition, to judge from the reasons particularly urged by Schitt- 
gen against Glasener, is to be dated not later than the second century 
after Christ, the Ancient of Days reflects himself in the PDIN ΤῊΣ 
the little countenance. From that the light is poured forth upon all 
creatures, and these again beam back their borrowed rays to the 
Ancient of Days. (Idra Rabba, Sect. VIII. § 126.) ‘The same 
little countenance bears also the name Shechinah, (i. e. the fulness of 
God,) and is expressly called j)pr7, εἰκών; it is the beginning of all 
creation. It is likewise called Metatron, (Mediator,) and compre- 


304 CHAPTER IX. V. 5. 


hends the upper and the lower world, in centro, being created after 
God’s image. These are literally the expressions upon the subject. 
in Sohar. In complete unison speaks the book Jezirah, (the age of 
which it is impossible to fix, but which is already quoted in the Ge- 
marah, so that it cannot well fall later than into the fifth century.) We 
there read, (Liber Jezirah, ed. Rittang. Amst. 1642, § 2.): ‘* The 
second intelligence is that which enlightens. It is the crown of cre- 
ation, Mwn AINA Ww, the Brightness entirely equal to the unity, 
and is exalted above all heads.*’ In virtue of this conception of the 
great primeval Revealer of God, who, imbibing the whole plenitude 
of the Divine life, irradiates it out upon other beings, and in virtue of 
the view, that this very Revealer and Mediator of the upper and 
lower world has appeared in the humanity of the Messias, the Mes- 
sias is by Jewish theologians contemplated as identical with God. 
He bears the all holy name of Jehovah, likewise that of mpm, i. €. 
δι Π2 wapn, which thus perfectly coincides with Paul’s here as- 
cribing to him the doxology, (Sommer. Theol. Soharica, p. 78. 
Maii Theol. Jud. 1. VII. § 1. Schéttgen, Hore Hebr. T. II. p. 8.) 
With these doctrines of the Jewish theology, we have, moreover, 
likewise to compare the germs of them, which are already contained 
in the Apocryphal books. (Wisdom vii. 22, 25. Sirachi. 4, 9. Chp. 
xliii.) And thus, on historical, no less than on grammatical grounds, 
the construction of the saying which we have mentioned seems to 
be confirmed as the most correct. 

That construction, accordingly, has been defended by the majority 
of ancient and more modern expositors, Origen, Ignatius, Tertullian, 
Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose, ‘Theodoret, Athanasius, Gicumenius, 
Cassian, Calvin, Melancthon, Wolf, Heumann, Chr. Schmid and 
many others. Several of these even found upon the text, an argu- 
ment against the assailants of Christ’s divinity. So that all, even 
exegetical tradition, conspires to establish the received exposition. 
Notwithstanding of this, however, various variations of exposition 
have, since the time of Erasmus, been attempted; but these, to their 
own disadvantage, deviate very far from each other. ‘The first who 
proposed a different exposition was Erasmus, who, in the enlarged 
edition of his Annotations, as if to display upon this passage his 
whole ingenuity, (for in the Paraphrase he translates agreeably to 
the common interpretation,) stated three, nay, four modes of punc- 
tuation, each giving rise to a variety of meaning. Others afterwards 
followed. In the first place, he proposes as allowable, to place a 
point after xara σάρχα, and to apply the doxology altogether to the 
Father, as a laud for his mercy shown to the Israelites. So Enjed- 
din, Whiston, Semler. It is an objection to this, however, that the 
εὐλογητός» Which should be the predicate to Θεός, stands contrary to 
rule, beliind its subject. Bengel, in fact, and prior to him, Faustus 
Socinus, remarked, that, in Hebrew the 12, and after the same man- 
ner, the εὐλογητός in Greek, stand always at the beginning of the 
doxologies; the sole exception to this rule, being Ps. Ixvili. 20, in the 


CHAPTER IX. Y. 5, 6. 305 


LXX. But especially might it be objected that then the ὧν would be 
a wholly idle and highly unnatural addition. 

Erasmus, moreover, proposes that the point be placed after πάντων; 
that ὁ ὧν tat πάντων be regarded as descriptive of Christ in contrast 
to the τὸ xara odexa, and that a doxology be supposed from Θεός on- 
ward. Locke, Clark, Justin and Ammon take the same course. 
With this interpretation, it is true the forced character of the previous 
one is in some degree done away, for the τὸ χατὰ σάφχα obtains an 

“Antithesis, and the ὧν is no longer superfluous. But then again there 
is something strange, on the one hand, in the undefined nature of the 
expression ὁ ext πάντων, which cannot be excused by the ἐπάνω πάν- 
τῶν of John iii. 31, and on the other, in the position of the predicate 
εὐλογητὸς after the subject; in fine also Θεός, as that subject, would 
have required the article. We pass over the other misconstructions 
of the passage, and only further notice the subterfuge of the Socinians, 
who contend, that by the addition of ἐσὺ πάντων, it is clearly shown, 
that Θεός is to be here taken in the more general sense of ‘* Lord 
Ruler.”’ More arbitrary still than the misinterpretations of the mean- 
ing, are the alterations of the text. Erasmus shows, that in several 
manuscripts of Cyprian, Hilary and Chrysostom, the passage is cited 
without Deus; this, however, is but an error of the pen, for the best 
manuscripts contain it. Grotius maintains that the Syriac translator 
does not express it, which is not true. He distinctly renders: “ Who 
is God above 81]. Stolzleaves it out in his translation. It remains 
to say, that Whitby, Crell, ‘Taylor and others, instead of ὁ ὧν and ὧν 
6, ‘*to whom belongs also the ever blessed God,” in violation alike 

of all the manuscripts and of sound understanding. Upon this text 
is to be particularly consulted the dissertation of Seigm. Baumgarten, 

Comm. ad difficiliora verba Rom. ix. 5. Hale, 1746, and Flatt, An- 

not. ad loca quedam, Epist. ad Rom. 1801, p. 18 —27. 

V.6. How now! might the haughty Jew ask. You condemn 
us all for refusing to believe in your Christ, and thereby will bring 
a charge upon God himself of not being trust-worthy, for has he not 
promised that all Israel shall be received into the commonwealth of 
the Messias? Paul replies, that from the very beginning, the promise 
of God had not designed to ensure, to every Israelite, as such, the 
Messias’ kingdom. Calvin: Quia voti sui fervore quasi in ecstasin, 
raptus fuerat Paulus, jam ad suas docendi partes redire volens, spe- 
ciem correctionis adhibet, ac si seipsum ex immodico cruciatu colli- 
geret. 


306 CHAPTER Ix. v. 6. 


PAR Ted 1: 


GOD RECOGNIZES NEITHER BODILY EXTRACTION, NOR YET MAN'S WORKS 
AS CLAIMS TO MERCY. ΡΥ. 6—14. 


Ver. 6. οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐχπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Even the an- 
cient expositors, Gicumenius, ‘Theophylact and the Latin, take οἷον 
correctly, as an adverb, in the sense, if, as if, and, agreeably to that, 
supply a τοῦτο λέγω after οὐχ: The ὅτι is then pleonastically united to 
οἷον, aS both in profane authors and in the New Testament, 6c else- 
where appears conjoined with ὡς», (2 ‘Thess. il. 2.) Gicumenius: οὐκ 
ἐπειδὴ ἐχπέτιτωκεν ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ; ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τὴν meds αὐτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐν- 
δείξωμαι. If, however, objections are taken to consider the ὅτου as 
pleonastic, it might do to take οἷον in its original signification, as 
relative, and supply before it, οὐ τοιοῦτον δὲ λέγω. At any rate, either 
of these two constructions, which are also to be found in Calvin, Lu- 
ther, Camerarius, Carpzov, Alberti and others, is preferable to the 
third, which has been embraced by Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Coc- 
ceius, Venema, De Wette and many more, viz. that οἷον is here used 
as elsewhere οἷόν rz, and should be translated, «It is, however, im- 
possible that..." Nowhere can we find examples of this exchange. 
There is something naive in Heumann’s remark, ‘ That zz is a very 
little vocable, and serves no purpose but ornament; it may, conse- 
quently, be omitted.” Wetstein indeed pretends to produce authori- 
ties. ‘They are, however, inappropriate, inasmuch as it is either the 
masculine of the relative οἷος which is used, or the neuter with the 
dative of the person. Besides the infinitive follows after οἷος. More- 
over, acircumstance, which speaks still more against that explanation, 
is, that even allowing the omission of the τες the peculiar construction 
of οἷον τε 1s opposed to it, that being always followed by the infinitive, 
so that it would run οὐχ οἷόν τε ixmentoxévar. 

λόγος means here promise, like “727. ᾿Ἐχπίπτειν, which in the 
LXX. answers to 55), is here, just like its Hebrew counterpart (Josh. 
xxi. 45. 1 Kings viii. 56. 2 Kings x. 10), used of promises un- 
fulfilled. As there are many vouchers for this in the New Testa- 
ment (compare 6. g. 1 Cor. xiii. 8), that is itself sufficient to show, 
that we cannot admit the explanation of Casaubon, who, appealing 
to 2 Mace. vi. 8, takes it in the sense, ‘‘ to proceed out of the mouth,” 
and translates: At id fieri non potest, nam a Deo profectus est hic 
sermo. 

οὐ yae πάντες οἱ ἐξ "Ioegann οὗτοι Ioganrx. ‘The Apostle means by 
these words, merely to confute the conceit of the Jews, as if bodily 


CHAPTER IX. V. 6, 7. 307 


extraction conferred a prerogative. He proceeds here, in the same 
manner as at the beginning of chap. 111. Just as there, he did not 
deny that the Jew possesses advantages over the Gentile, but merely 
showed that the former, notwithstanding all of these, and just so much 
the more culpably, proved himself equally sinful, so likewise here, 
he allows that /srael and the seed of Abraham enjoy a distinction, 
but restricts the sense of the word, /srael and seed of Abraham, in 
the same way as in chap. ii. 28, he limited the appellation of Jew. 
And doubtless it was the fact, that when God promised felicity to the 
Jewish people, through the Messias, he did not intend thereby to re- 
ceive the whole nation as such, into the divine kingdom, but merely 
contemplated, that salvation should proceed from the midst of Israel, 
and those be admitted to its enjoyment, who complied with the con- 
ditions under which it was imparted. But highly pernicious was the 
effect of the delusion under which the Jews laboured, in imagining 
that a title to pardon belonged to them as Jews. ‘This delusion is 
censured by Justin M. Dial. cum. Tryph. c. 44, p. 140, ed. Ben. 
καὶ ἐξαπατάτε ἑαυτοὺς ὑπονοοῦντες διὰ τὸ εὖναυ τοῦ “ABeadm xara σάρκα 
σπέρμω πάντως κληξονομήσειν τὰ κατηγγελμένω παρὰ Jou Θεοῦ διὰ 7οῦ Χευσ- 
7οῦ δοθήσεσθαι ἀγαθά. It is roughly expressed in the Talmud, Tract. 
Sanhedrin, c. 11, at the commencement, in the following words, 
which have since become a universal principle among the Jews. 
nan ody pan ond δ Ssow> 5a, “All Israel has a share in the life 
eternal.”” From this totality of Israel, the Gemara, at the passage 
mentioned, excepts only the various classes of heretics. Even our 
Saviour assailed the delusion of a claim to favour, founded on bodily 
extraction, John viii. 39. Compare Matt. iii. 9. Gal. 11. 29. And 
the Jews themselves admit, that he who does not live like Abraham 
is not to be reckoned as belonging to Israel; Only in saying this, they 
attribute a claim of right to human virtue. So Philo, De Nobilitate, 
p- 906. De prem. et pen. p. 919, and Abarbanel in.the book Na- 
chalath Avoth, f. 183, c. 1: ‘* The disciple whose morals are corrupt, 
even though he belongs to the children of Israel, is still not of the 
disciples of Abraham, and the reason is, that he does not endeavour 
after his manners.”” 

V.7. Even in the case of Abraham’s own children, Paul means 
to say, it is manifest that bodily extraction, as such, confers no fiéle. 
Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, were no less Abraham’s children 
than Isaac. Nay, Ishmael was the first-born, (for his being born of 
a maid-servant, need no more have invalidated his right than the right 
of the sons of Jacob, who were born of maid-servants, was invalidated 
on that account.) God, nevertheless, permitted the promise made 
to the patriarch, to be fulfilled by Isaac. Highly interesting, and 
very similar to that of Paul, is the description which R. Jehuda Le- 


* Ye deceive yourselves, when you suppose that because you are the seed 
of Abraham according to the flesh, you will surely inherit the blessing 
promised to be vouchsafed by God, through Christ. 


308 CHAPTER IX. V. 7. 


vita (he lived about 1140) gives of the manifestation of God’s free 
grace in the election of the founders of the theocracy. He says 
(Liber Cosri ed. Buxt. Bas. 1660, P. I. c. 95, and P. II. ὁ. 12) * that 
ONT PD, (this phrase, which literally means Divine thing, has 
probably been substituted by the Hebrew translators for an Arabic 
one signifying Divine essence,) has, from the beginning of time, been 
preserved in a certain line of the human race, and if a man had several 
sons it was transmitted to one, and the rest of them were shut out 
from it. The former then becomes, as it were, the kernel of the 
race, the latter, with all others excluded, forms the shell. According 
to God’s decree, Ishmael, although he was the first-born, was rejected 
as the shell, and Isaac obtained the τι Ν ΓΙ ray. In the same way 
Esau was rejected, although the stronger, and Jacob, although the 
weaker of the two, obtained Canaan.’’ ‘True it is, that the connec- 
tion, in which Levita speaks thus, shows that he takes a very dif- 
ferent view of the economy of God from that of Paul, still the one 
has many points of contact with the other. 

Now, from this example, and still more from that of Jacob and 
Esau, which comes after, the Calvinist might draw the following 
conclusion: Does Paul, in order to justify the mode of dispensing 
admission into the inward kingdom of God, appeal to the mode in 
which admission is administered into the outward kingdom of God, 
and is this the same in both cases, then the decretum absolutum ne- 
cessarily follows. For Paul describes the dispensation of the ancient 
theocratical institution as something emanating merely from the 
absolute will of God, and even the opponents of Calvinism allow, that 
the reason why the Jews were taken for the covenant people, is to 
be traced directly to the will of God. (That the Jews were raised 
to be the covenant people, not for their works’ sake, God himself 
declares, Deut. ix. 6, and the prophets frequently speak to the same 
effect. It does not follow, however, that the election of Israel took 
place, without any grounds in the Divine wisdom. Several of these 
grounds we are enabled to discover, even while here upon earth; the 
whole will be clear to us, when we come to understand the whole 
plan of the universe. See Lessing, Erziehung des Mensechenge- 
schlechts, § 8, 18; Tholuck, Apologet. Winke, zum Studium des A. 
T. Berlin, 1821.) Accordingly, Paul gives us to understand that the) 
ground why God vouchsafes invincible grace to some, and with such 
grace, salvation, lies also in the will of God, and in that alone. This 
inference, however, is nowise to be admitted. With regard to the 
outward theocracy, all that Paul denies, is, that it was conferred in 
virtue of claims founded upon bodily extraction, or good works, with- 
out, however, thereby meaning to deny the existence of other mo- 
tives in the Divine wisdom. And so far as the inward New Testa- 
ment theocracy is concerned, there is to be found in the mode of dis- 
pensing admission thereto, no more than a negative coincidence with 
the mode of dispensing admission into that of the Old Testament, 7. e. 
inasmuch as admission into the kingdom of Christ is not obtained 


CHAPTER IX. V. 7, 8. 309 


upon the ground of bodily extraction or of works. But whereas 
the kingdom of Christ is something which does not merely concern 
the outward man, like the Jewish church, there will be found, if we 
weigh the positive side of the matter, this difference obtaining, viz. 
that the kingdom of Christ comes to men, solely under a condition, 
which is, that they do not reject grace. Now, in thus comparing 
this entrance into the kingdom οἵ Christ, with the entrance into the 
Jewish theocracy, he merely brings forward the resemblance of the 
admission into both, in a negative respect, and means to show no 
more than that in the one case, as in the other, there were no ante- 
cedent claims. 

οὐδ᾽ ὅτι. ‘This the Vulgate renders by: Neque qui. It is better 
as the Syriac does, to take ὅτυ as equivalent to διότι. ‘To τέχνα we 
may supply with Theodoret, τοὺ Θεοῦ, which, ver. 8, stands beside 
τέχνα. ‘That passage, however, can prove nothing as to the present, 
inasmuch as there the allusion is not precisely the same. We rather 
look here for τοὺ ᾿Αβεαάμ to be supplied, and the more so from the 
proposition appearing to harmonize with the preceding one in ver. 6. 

ty "Ioaax κτλ. The passage is quoted from Gen. xxi. 12. The 
χαλεῖν has here, after Sp, the sense, fo choose. In the Divine Re- 
velations a progression is discernible from the lower to the higher, 
from the more general and undefined to the more defined, just as in 
nature. Abraham first receives the general assurance, that his seed 
should inherit the land, and then, afterwards, the more specific one, 
that Isaac was the one who should be heir. According to a free 
οἰκονομία, God ordained the latter no less than the former. 

V.8. The τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν may give the historical exegesis of God’s 
declaration. It may also, however, serve to introduce the prefigura- 
tive intimation which, according to Paul’s judgment, was involved 
in that declaration. Baldwin, Mosheim, ‘Taylor and others construe 
it in the first way. ‘The sense, in that case, would be: We see, then, 
that according to his free purpose, God does not regard those children 
as heirs of the Heavenly Kingdom, who descend in a bodily way 
from the patriarch, but those only whom, according to his free pur- 
pose, he has actually called. Now, doubtless, by this explanation, 
the object of the Apostle would be attained. 'The example would 
sufficiently teach, that a purpose of free grace of some kind or other, , 
such, perhaps, as in the present case, to link the tokens of favour to 
the promise, suffices to open to any the entrance into God’s kingdom. 
By this explanation, however, the ἐπαγγελία falls into the back- 
ground, although the Apostle obviously intends to bring it forward, 
as is also clear from ver. 9. Even on this account alone, we have to 
suppose with Origen, Theophylact, Gicumenius, Ambrose, Eras- 
mus, Grotius, Limborch and many others, that Paul finds in that pro- 
cedure of God with Abraham, and in the special election of Isaac, a 
typical allusion to the believers of the New Testament. ‘The τοῦτ᾽ 
ἔστι accordingly is to be paraphrased: “ Accordingly, it is inti- 
mated to us by that procedure of God, that......”’. This is the precise 


310 CHAPTER Ix. V. 8. 


import of the Rabbinical phrase 27 Ὁ Nim). We have now to 
answer the question, In what, according to Paul’s view, does the 
similarity of believers to Isaac consist? 

The great bulk of the expositors we have quoted, suppose it to lie 
in the circumstance, that Isaac was born in a miraculous and extra- 
ordinary way, just as Christians, in respect of the inner man, are 
preternaturally begotten, whereas the other sons of the patriarch 
came into the world precisely in the common course of nature. ‘The 
Arminians in particular conceive the type in this manner. On the 
contrary, Ambrose, and, for the most part, the Lutherans, regard the 
resemblance as consisting in this, that a mere promise called Isaac 
into life, just as in the case of believers, the objective proposal of the 
forgiveness of sins, on the part of God, and the simple reception of 
the same, on the part of men, suffice for their acquittal, without any 
external condition being fixed. ‘This allusion, certainly very closely 
connected with that before mentioned, is indisputably the most ap- 
propriate. Accordingly Paul was able, by the instance he quoted of 
Abraham and Isaac, not only to show what appears, from the second 
example, which is without typical significance, to have been origi- 
nally his sole aim, viz. that God, in a.way altogether free, may either 
vouchsafe or deny admission into his kingdom (it is to be particu- 
larly noticed, that through the whole of this argumentation, one side 
of the question alone is uniformly brought forward, while the other, 
or what man is to do when the grace of God is offered to him, re- 
mains here altogether untouched); but we obtain from the instance 
selected, a still deeper intimation, viz. that God appointed to be the 
father of the theocracy, that particular individual who had been called 
into existence, by a simple promise of God, apart altogether from 
the way of ordinary bodily propagation. Here, as in other passages, 
the Apostle puts a typical construction upon the Old ‘Testament, in 
whose narratives both of individuals and of the nation, so many ana- 
logies are to be found. In virtue of these, the beautiful saying of the 
Cabbalists, often so perversely applied, may, in a certain respect, be 
approven (Synopsis Sohar, p. 27, No. 19): 4s an angel of God, 
never, but inaterrestrial garb, appears upon earth, so there is amys- 
terious meaning of Scripture arrayed in the open one. And, with 
no less truth than beauty, does Augustine say, upon the same grounds, 
Quest. ev. in Exod.: “The whole Old Testament resembles the 
mystery of the ark of the covenant, over which the cherubim spread 
their covering wings.’’ In Gal. iv. 23, likewise, the Apostle con- 
templates Isaac, in respect of his birth being the consequence of a 
promise, as a type of Christian believers. In a perfectly similar 
way, the γεννηθεὶς xara σάρκα and the γεννηθεὶς χατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν Stand in 
opposition, although there the point of contrast is different. Calvin’s 
construction of this declaration and its meaning is as follows: Duo 
sunt hie consideranda, promissionem salutis Abrahze datam ad omnes 
pertinere, qui ad eum carnis originem referunt, quia omnibus sine 
exceptione offeratur, atque hac ratione jure appellari federis cum 


CHAPTER Ix; v. 9, 10. 811 


Abrahamo concussi heredes. Nam quum Dominus voluerit foedus 
suum non minus in Ismaele et Esau quam in Isaac et Jacob assignari, 
apparet non fuisse penitus ab ipso alienos, nisi forte pro nihilo habeas 
circumcisionem. Alterum est, filios promissionis proprie nuncupari, 
in quibus ipsius virtus et eflicacia exstet. Ea ratione hic negat Pau- 
lus omnes Abrahe filios esse filios Dei.’’ ‘This distinction between 
the gratia efficax et ineflicax is, however, totally inapplicable, as it 
is manifest that here the subject spoken of, is solely the bestowal of 
external privileges (such as the Theocracy), and not the influences 
of Divine grace upon the soul; not to mention that the Calvinistic 
exposition does not accord with the connection. ‘The Remonstrants 
justly remark: agitur hic non de datione fidei sed justitiz. ‘The 
expression τέχνα τῇ Θεᾷ denotes those members of the 'Theocracy who 
are acceptable to God, and obtain entrance into the Messias’ king- 
dom. Λογίζεσθαι zug τι, to look upon as something, like the Hebrew 
5 awn). 

V.9. Paul brings a text from the Old Testament to vouch that 
Isaac’s birth really was the consequence of a promise of grace. ‘The 
passage is from Gen. xviii. 10,14. In the LXX. the translation does 
not run precisely the same way. For χατὰ τὸν καιφὸν τοῦτον, there 
stands in the Hebrew, the difficult phrase ΠΤ ny2, which the LXX. 
render xara τὸν xacedv τοῦτον εἰς Seas, Onkelos: [5 pI |W. The 
likeliest grammatical explanation is that 7m is adjective Gen. fem. 
as Drusius expounds: hoe tempore vivente, 7. 6. redeunte. ‘The 
same phrase returns 2 Kings iv. 16. 

V.10. The instance adduced of the election of Isaac was, doubt- 
less, decisive enough, more especially considering that Ishmael, as 
first born, ought to have had a prior title. Still the reason of Isaac’s 
vocation to be Founder of the Theocracy, might have been sought, 
not in God’s free purpose, but in some circumstance connected with 
the children; as, for example, in the fact that Ishmael was born ofa 
different mother, and she a slave, a haughty and impious woman, &c. 
For that reason, Paul shows, in a still more pertinent example, how 
God’s purposes recognize no claims whatever on the part of man. 
Rebecca bore Jacob and Esau, twin brothers, consequently both had 
the same father and the same mother, nay, Esau was in this instance 
also the first born, but nevertheless God made the call to be founder , 
of the Theocracy be transferred to Jacob. Several expositors, such 
as Ambrose, Arminius, Hunnius, Cornelius a Lapide and others, 
suppose that here also Jacob and Esau have a typical signification. 
And, doubtless, that opinion might be evinced somewhat in the fol- 
lowing way: Ishmael and Esau are both first-born sons, both boisterous 
and wild, both excluded from the Theocracy, both expelled from 
their home. Isaac and Jacob are both younger brothers, both gen- 
tle and meek, both founders of the Theocracy, and inhabitants of 
Canaan, as prefigurative, first, of the gospel promises, and secondly, 
of the βασιλεία τοῦ Xevorou in glory. In this way is the type under- 
stood by Barnabas, Epp. c. 12. p. 48. ed. Cot., by Tertullian, adv. 


312 CHAPTER Ix. V 10. 


Mare. 1. III. p. 412. ed. Rig., and likewise by Cyprian, Testimon. 
adv. Judeos. Although, however, the matter admits such a repre- 
sentation, still Paul has not here brought the typical sense promi- 
nently forward. Neither was this possible, inasmuch as the election 
of Jacob, he not having been born on the ground of so weighty a 
promise as Isaac, was not in a typical point of view of such a sort as 
to demonstrate any thing in favour of the free justification of be- 
lievers. 

ov μόνον δέ, Heightening of the proof. ‘'Theodoret: Ei vduifeus, 
φησὶ, διὰ τὴν Σάῤῥαν προτιμηθῆναν τὸν ᾿Ισαὰκ cov ᾿Ισμαὴλ: τί ἂν εὔπῃς 
περὶ τῆς Ῥεβέκκας. We have not only to fill up a blank after οὐ μόνον 
δέ, but to suppose an ἀνακόλουθον. After od μόνον δέ many supply 
᾿Αβραὰμ τοῦτο ἔπαθεν, as Beza; others ᾿Αβεαὰμ τοῦτο δείκνυσιν, as 
Baumgarten, in which case it would be unnecessary to explain the 
word Rebecca by an ἀναχόλουθον. It is, however, more probable, 
that after the ascending μόνον, we have merely to supply what is 
usually supplied, a τοῦτο, as is done by Luther; ‘not only is such 
the case,”’ (and this τοῦτο we might explain with Theophylact: ᾿Επὸ 
τοὺ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦτο tous, or better ἐπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αβεαὰμ τοῦτο ὑδοις.) and that 
Rebecca, instead of the nominative, should stand in the dative, see- 
ing it ought properly to be construed with the ἐῤῥήθη inv. 12. This 
is the way Castalio translates, Rebecce, and at v. 12. he again takes 
up the dative: Rebeccee inquam dictum est; so also Luther. We 
cannot suppose, with Schiéttgen, that, according to the analogy of 
the Hebrew, in which a nominativus absol. can precede and be re- 
ferred to by a subsequent pronoun in the dative, Rebecca is here to 
be rendered: Quod attinet ad Rebeccam. It is rather evident from 
the yée at the commencement of ver. 11. that Paul has let the con- 
struction slip. It will not answer, whatever way the sentence from 
ἀλλὼ καὶ may be conceived, to supply the name Σάῤῥα after od μόνον 
dé, as, so long ago, Ambrose and the Syrian did, for the allusion to 
the Patriarch himself predominates so greatly in the example of Isaac, 
that Sarah is thrown into the shade. 

ἐξ ἑνός. ‘The Vulgate translates, ex uno concubitu, and Origen, 
Augustine and others, expound conformably. The view is defended 
by Havercamp, but, to say nothing of other objections, it would, in 
that case, be impossible to know what to supply, for the masculine 
κοῦτος has not the signification of consuetudo maritalis. It is also 
improper to supply yedvor with Zeger and Hammond. The most 
natural way is that adopted of old by the Syriac, viz. to construe ἑνός 
as the masculine genitive with ’Icadx, so that the sense is: There 
was but one mother and one father. 

V. 11. However clearly the connection, as hitherto explained, de- 
monstrates that Paul cannot, in the three following verses, intend to 
deliver the doctrine of absolute election, his words have nevertheless 


* If you deem that it was on Sarah’s account Isaac was preferred to Ish- 
mael, what can you say about Rebecca’? 


CHAPTER IX. v. 11. 313 


been expounded to that effect, and when the conrection and analogia 
Jidet are overlooked, it is very possible to doso. Baldwin: Hoc est 
illud mare periculosum, in quo, qui cynosuram verbi divini, quod 
omne consilium Dei nobis revelavit, non attendit, naufragium fidei 
facit. Augustine, at an earlier period of his life, had laboured in his 
Prop. 60, and more especially ad Simpl. 1. I. q. 2, to show that these 
verses cannot speak of adecretum absolutum. He afterwards retracted 
his opinion, however, and endeavoured to establish the contrary, Re- 
tract. 1. I. c. 23; De Predest. Sanct. c. iv. 16, 17, 18. Among the 
defenders of the doctrine of absolute election are principally to be 
compared, Pareus, Dub. 6, ad. ἢ. ο.; Polanus, Syloge dissert. de 
praedest. p. 664; Calvin himself, Instit. ]. III. c. 21, § 7, sqq.; and 
Mark, Exercitationes, ad. N. et V. 'T. Exercit. IV. Among the 
opponents of the decretum absolutum, see in particular Gerhard, Loci 
Theol: T. 1V.; Baldwin, Obs. ad. ἢ. οἱ; Arminius, Acta Dordracena 
Remonstr. p. 113—129; Limborch on the text; Deyling, Obs. Sacre. 
T.1V. Obs. V. against Mark’s Exercit. 1V. As the defenders of 
the decretum can only be refuted by a careful exposition of particulars 
in unison with the connection, we at once proceed to this. 

μήπω yae γεννηθέντων. The yae introduces the ἀνακόλουθον; ‘To 
γεννηθέντων We have to supply τῶν παίδων. In place of xaxov some 
codices read φαῦλον. In order to understand this verse, we must 
conceive ver. 12, as preceding it. The sum of both is as follows: 
‘Their fate was determined before their external relations or 
actions could give them opportunity of establishing a claim.” Here, 
however, arises the momentous question, what kind of fate was it 
which was determined? Surely not their eternal happiness or dam- 
nation? Ver. 13 shews that privileges and distinctions in general 
are the subject spoken of, just as at Mal. 1. 3, mention is made merely 
of outward blessing of all kinds, partaken by the sons of Jacob; but 
the connection and the foregoing example of Isaac likewise lead us 
to conclude, that along with the decree respecting outward privileges 
in general, the theocratical vocation of both individuals, and of the 
nations that descended from them, was ἴδ) a more particular manner 
decided. Independent of claims which Esau might have advanced 
to the honour of propagating by his seed the Theocracy and other 
advantages connected with it, God vouchsafed this prerogative, to- ’ 
gether with the occupancy of the Theocratical country, to Jacob. 
Now, inasmuch as the doctrine involved in that history was meant 
to show the Jews the connection in which they stood with Christ, 
doubtless what took place must also have some application to them. 
That, however, will not consist in this, that the instance demonstrates, 
that God, according to his absolute decree, gives faith in Christ to 
some, but denies it to others, or, that as Esau, of God’s mere good 
pleasure, was shut out from the actual, and consequently, likewise, 
from the typical Canaan, so are many arbitrarily excluded from the 
kingdom of Christ. Much rather does the bearing upon the Jews 
consist in this, that just as God, without acknowledging right, con- 

40 


314 CHAPTER Ix. V. 1]. 


ferred the outward Theocracy and various advantages upon whom he 
chose, so also does he now convey the inward Theocracy to, or per- 
mits to enter therein, the person whom he chooses. And, in fact— 
for this is the argument against the Jews—he permits those only to 
enter, who acknowledge the despised Nazarene, as the anointed of 
the Lord, and seek salvation by closing with his redemption. Jerome, 
Ep. 120, ad Hedibiam, qu. 10, ed. Vall.:—non salvat (nos) Deus 
irrationabiliter et absque judicii veritate, sed causis praecedentibus, 
quia alii non susceperunt filium Dei, alii vero recipere sua sponte 
voluerunt. See especially ‘Turretin, ad ἢ. 1. Accordingly, the 
Apostle does not even touch the relation betwixt what is done by man, 
and what by God, in the work of conversion, and we again find 
nothing more than an application of that old Testament history to the 
New Testament dalio justitizx, not however fidet. 

ἵνα ἡ κατ᾽ ἐχλογὴν πεόθεσις μένῃ, Statement of the design which lies 
in that prediction of God. Mévew applied to purposes, means, like 
the Hebrew 1ny, fo have permanence. (Palairet brings examples 
from profane authors.) The eternal purpose of God seems then to 
be unchangeable to man when God in time, and ere any thing has 
occurred to make him alter it, makes-it known to man. IedGeous, as 
at 6. viii. 28, means the purpose of God, and, indeed, the word refers 
positively to the advantages imparted to Jacob; Esau’s exclusion, 
however, from a variety of tokens of grace, and especially from the 
Theocracy, is not represented as a positive transaction. That such 
is the case appears from the circumstance, that wherever a πρόθεσις» 
in regard to man, is ascribed to God, it universally denotes a pur- 
pose of salvation on the part of God, Rom. viii. 28. Eph. iii. 11. 
2 Tim. i. 9. Just as, in point of fact, the exclusion of men from the 
outward as well as from the inward kingdom of God, is no act of 
God’s, but merely a preterition. This πρόθεσις is further defined by 
the addition xar’ ἐχλογήν. Now that may be very variously taken 
up. First, there are some, as Origen, Grotius, Venema, Wolf and 
Koppe, who understand it objectively, as designation of the object, 
what the πρόθεσις respects; and, in truth, not unfrequently in Greek, 
xara is to be rendered, in respect to. Grotius: Voluntas libera Dei 
in iis que pertinent ad prelationem. ‘Then again there are others 
who take this addition subjectively, as descriptive of the nature of 
the πεόθεσις; and this meaning of substances, when joined by xara 
to another noun, is at least the mere common, κατά with the accusa- 
tive being used to form adjectives. Here again, however, the various 
expositors divide in their conception of the meaning of ἐκλογή. 
Chrysostom, Photius and Ambrose, understand by it, God’s electing, 
according to the actions which he foresaw. Photius: Εἰπὼν xar’ 
ἐχλογὴν:» ἔδειξεν OTe καὶ διέφερον ἀλλήλων. οὐδεὺς Yue ἐκλέγεται Prego ἀφ᾽ 
ἑτέρου; εἰ μή τι αὐτοῦ διαλλάσσοι.ἔ ‘This exposition is connected with 


* By the words κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, he shows that they differed from each other; 
for no one elects one of two before the other, unless for some difference. 


CHAPTER Ix. V. ll. 315 


that which, in an unnatural way, the same expositors put upon οὐκ 
ἐξ Yeyeav, viz. “not of works already performed, but yet of works 
foreseen,”’ which is wholly contrary to the connection. Chr. Schmid 
proposes to take ἐχλογή as Synonymous with ayany, just as ἐχλεχτός 
is equivalent to ἀγαπητός, and translates: ut appareret Dei decretum 
benevolentia niti. But ἐχλογήν except where it stands as abstr. pro 
concr. can never be totally equivalent to ἀγάπη. Ernesti justly ob- 
serves, Institut. Interp. N. 'T. P. ii. c. 8, that the Hebrew endeavours 
to illustrate the idea of freedom by that of choice, that Josephus also, 
De Bello. Jud. 1. Il. c. 1, § 14, uses éxaoyy in the sense of freedom, 
(The passage treats of the Sadducees, and says: φασὶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώτιων 
ἐχλογῇ τὸ τε xaxdv καὶ τὸ καλὸν meoxeLcbat. In Plutarch, ἐχλογή 1S 
found employed in the same way,) and, accordingly, that here too 
the xar’ ixaoyjv must indicate still more the absoluteness of the πρό- 
θεσις. Now, this grammatical exposition is adopted by anti-predes- 
tinarians, as well as by predestinarians, and, in this respect, there is 
no difference betwixt the two parties. Calvin explains: propositum 
Dei quod sola ejus beneplacito continetur, and Bengel: in sola elec- 
tione liberrima πρόθεσις suam rationem sitam habet. Latine diceres, 
propositum Dei electivum. Very different, however, is the doctrinal 
bearing connected with this idea of an absolutely free choice by the 
Calvinists on the one hand, and by the Lutherans, Arminians and 
many Catholics on the other. The Calvinists, with whom the notion 
of God’s freedom passes too easily into that of arbitrariness, under- 
stood under zxaoyy, as was done by Augustine in his day, that unre- 
stricted liberty of choice, on the part of God, in virtue of which he 
ean impart faith to whomsoever he will, while their opponents under- 
stand by it, that freedom of choice whereby he can choose and appoint 
what conditions he will, on which to vouchsafe admission into his 
kingdom. In compliance with the doctrinal conception which Au- 
gustine and Calvin form of the word éxaoyz, the former thus expounds 
it, (Augustine c. duas Ep. Pell. |. II. c. 7): Electionem quippe dixit, 
ubi Deus non ab alio factum, quod eligat invenit, sed quod inveniat 
ipse facit. Here, also, this exposition is refuted by the fact, that the 
Apostle (after Mal. i. 3), is speaking of the dispensation of external 
tokens of grace alone, and among these, of the external theocracy, 
but assuredly not at all of inward operations of grace, that hence, the 
New Testament subject to which that of the Old refers, is not faith 
in the scheme of salvation for all mankind, but this scheme itself, 
which God, according to his free purpose, has indicated as the door 
through which all must pass, who wish to have an interest in the 
kingdom of Christ. The construction of Paul’s entire expression 
by the Lutherans, many Catholics and the Arminians, is the same, 
only that the latter, as usual, expound more historico-grammatically. 
Limborch: πεόθεσις est propositum quod Deus fecit cum quadam 
electione, vel per modum electionis, quo unum pretulit alteri. Electio 
enim discrimen aliquod et prelationem unius pre altero includit; 


316 CHAPTER Ix. v. 1]. 


nempe propositum quo Deus constituit sibi jus reservare declarandi 
quovis tempore, quos et quales pro semine Abrahami habere velit. 
οὐχ ἐξ ἔργων. ‘There are two kinds of false evasion to which the 
opponents of the decretum absolutum have here recourse. Several 
suppose that Paul merely refuses to acknowledge works performed, 
as conditional ground of election, but by no means intends to exclude 
them in so far as God, from the bias of men’s will, foresaw them. So 
in particular Photius: Εἰπὼν οὐκ ἐξ teyav, παξέστησε TO μέγεθος τῆς 
χλήσεως καὶ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ; OTL καὶ μηδὲν πραξάντων ἐχλέγεταυ καὶ 
πιδοσχαλεῦται; ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μηδὲν πραξάντων ἐχλέγεται; πὼς ἐκλέγεται; ἢ μὲν Ya 
ξχλογὴ ἐπὶ τῶν τι γίνεται διαφερόντων. οἱ δὲ μηδὲν πράξαντες, τί διαφέ- 
Covet; καὶ πάνυ. ἀνθξωπίνοις μὲν yae ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν ἔπραξαν; οὐδὲν 
διαφέξουσιν Sera δὲ πδογνώσει τοῦ μέλλοντος, πολλὰ διαφέξειν, καὺ ὃ μὲν εὐα- 
ξέστησε τῷ Θεῷ; ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἔτι. So likewise Theodoret: οὐχ ἐνέμεινεν 6 
δεὸς τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν πεῖραν. And so no less Augustine, Enchir. 
6. 98. Pelagius, (Compare particularly Julian’s declarations in 
Augustine, opus imp. con. Jul. 1. I. c. 131, Ambrose, Heumann, 
(Philo too, Alleg. 1. III. p. 77, explains God’s saying in this way, 
just like Pelagius). ‘This exposition, however, is altogether un- 
natural; and not without reason does’ Peter Martyr accuse its advo- 
cates, eos adverso flumine navigare. See also Augustine speaking 
against it, c. duas Ep. Pel. 1. 11. 6. 7, 5.15. On the other hand, there 
are some, especially Augustine, in Prop. 60, and Simplicius, 1. 1, 6. 
2, who would exclude works, in as far as they emanate from the love 
vouchsafed by God, but would not exclude faith on account of which 
that love was first bestowed. In the Prop. Augustine says: Quid 
ergo eligit Deus?’ Si enim cui vult donat Spiritum Sanctum per quem 
dilectio bonum operatur, quomodo elegit cui donat? Si enim nullo 
merito non est electio; Aquales enim omnes sunt ante meritum, nec 
potest in rebus omnino equalibus electio nominari. Sed quoniam 
Spiritus Sanctus non datur nisi credentibus, non quidem Deus eligit 
opera que ipse largitur, sed tamen eligit fidem. Quia nisi quisque 
credat in eum, et in accipiendi voluntate permaneat, non accipit do- 
num Dei. Augustine himself, at a subsequent period, rejected this 
shift, having learned, as he says, from Eph. vi. 23, that man derives 
faith likewise from God. Now, doubtless, from this point, the shift 
might be assailed, seeing that genuine belief of the heart presupposes 
an operation of the Divine Spirit in man. We cannot but imagine 


* By saying “not of works,” the Apostle exhibits the magnitude of God’s 
calling and grace, inasmuch as He calls and elects from among persons, who 
have done nothing. But if it be from among such that he elects, how is there 
any election at all? For election takes place among objects which are at 
least somewhat different; Wherein, however, lies the difference of persons 
who have done nothing? ’Tis all true. To human eyes, having done nothing, 
they differ in nothing. But in the divine foreknowledge which extends to the 


future, there is a mighty difference. The one has pleased God, while the 
other has not. 


CHAPTER IX. ν. Ll. 317 


faith to depend upon that inward compulsion, which forces itself upon 
a man’s religious and moral sense, and urges him in this way to yield 
his assent. But such compulsion is the work of God, which a man 
may resist, evade, but never call forth within himself. ‘This disputed 
point of doctrine, however, does not here come at all into question, 
inasmuch as it is proved by the connection, that the Apostle does not 
explain the relation between what is divine and what human in the 
work of conversion. It suffices for the exegesis of the passage be- 
fore us to say: “" Works confer no title to the acquisition of the 
Theocracy, God can impart admission to that to whomsoever he 
will.”” Elsewhere it is laid down who they are upon whom, in the 
times of the New Testament, he does choose to confer it. On the 
other hand, the Predestinarians are to blame, who, imitating Augus- 
tine, (in his later writings, De predest. sanct.) follow the Vulgate in 
the division of the words, and construe the οὐχ ἐξ-ττκαλοῦντος not with 
what goes before, but with ἐῤῥήθη, by which means the pretended 
predestinarian sense is brought somewhat more boldly out. Luther 
likewise expresses this connection. It is, however, highly unnatural. 
Much rather is the clause a more precise definition of the sort and 
manner of the πεόθεσις of God. ‘The éx τοῦ χαλοῦντος denotes that 
God’s purposes are not to be restrained by claims urged on the part 
of men. Were we to tear the declaration from its connection with 
the context, and refer it to eternal bliss or perdition, and were we 
further to regard neither the usus loquendi nor the analogia fidei, it 
would then, to be sure, be possible to demonstrate from it the decre- 
tum absolutum. In that case, we might include the not repelling 
the persuasive influence of the Holy Spirit as among the works, and 
say that man, according to the unconditional good pleasure of God, 
is converted by irresistible grace, and so brought into the spiritual 
kingdom of Christ. Not only, however, as we already showed, 
would this be altogether contrary to the connection, it would be as 
much contrary to Paul’s usus loquendi and the analogia fidei. For 
in respect of the former, it is justly observed in the Act. Syn. Dordr. 
Remonstr. as follows: “ With Paul, the expressions ἐξ ἔργων, κατὰ 
σάρκα, κατ᾽ ὀφείλημα; ἐξ Yeyav νόμου are always equivalent, Ubi enim 
Joquitur Scriptura ad hune modum, ut dicat fidem dari ex aut non ex 
operibus.”’ (It treats solely of the datio justitie not fidei.) ‘ Ubi 
aut quando hee questio mota est? Contra scriptura N. "δ. passim, 
et imprimis epistolae Paulinae, abunde agunt de imputando justitiam. 
Unde etiam manifeste liquere potest, quo pacto propositum Dei se- 
cundum electionem est, aut cum electione conjunctum, ita videlicet 
ut ex Judaeis peccatoribus eos eligat, qui sunt ex fide Christi, iis re- 
lictis, qui ex lege aut ex operibus sunt.’’ And as to the analogia 
fidei, Melancthon truly remarks, ‘There are two propositions so very 
demonstrable from Scripture, that we cannot avoid placing them in 
front of every inquiry into predestination: 1. Quod Deus non sit 
causa peccati. 2. Quod promissio universalis. ‘To the passages 


318 CHAPTER Ix. v. 11, 12, 13. 


which vouch the universality of the promise—and that certainly not 
in mere semblance—Ez. xxxiii. 11. 1 Tim. ii. 4. Tit. ii, 11. 
Rom. v. 12—19.° 2 Pet. iii. 9; we may add those which clearly 
represent the will to show mercy on God’s part, and the want of de- 
sire and the resistance on the part of men: Is. Ixv. 2. Jer. iii. 12. 
Matt. xxiii. 37. Acts vii. 51. Heb. iii. 8, 15. Acts xiii. 46. 
Memorable are the words of Calvin upon 2 Pet. iii. 9: Sed hic queri 
potest, 51 neminem Deus perire velit, cur tam multi pereunt? Res- 
pondeo, non de arcano Dei consilio hie fieri mentionem quo destinati 
sunt reprobi in suum exitium, sed tantum de voluntate que nobis in 
Evangelio patefit. (And why should we not believe just what 
stands in the Gospel?) Omnibus enim promiscue manum illic por- 
rigit Deus, sed eos tantum apprehendit ut ad se ducat, quos ante 
mundum conditum elegit. Alas for the poor reprobate! How God 
mocks them, stretching out his hand and yet refusing to draw them 
to himself. 

V.12. This saying was made to Rebecca, when the two children 
struggled in her womb, and she wished to have the thing explained, 
Gen. xxv. 22, 23. The words 6 μείζων and ὁ ἐλάσσων do not refer to 
Esau and Jacob, but immediately to tlie two nations that were re- 
spectively to descend from them. ‘This the parallelism in that pass- 
age shows, the first member of the verse being γ᾽ 0870089. In 
point of fact too Esau never served Jacob, as Augustine justly ob- 
serves. See Deyling, Observ. Τ᾽. IV. Obs. V. ρ. 715. From the 
circumstance that the declaration by God does not refer to the indi- 
viduals, it becomes still more manifest, that there can be no mention 
here of the communication to them of the gratia irresistibilis, but that 
it respects solely the freedom with which God imparts a right to the 
outward 'Theocracy, and the privileges therewith connected, and that 
the inference of the Apostle is simply as follows: It is thus in God’s 
power, without recognizing a claim which Israel desired to enforce, 
to appoint conditions of entrance into the new kingdom of God, 
under which all believing heathen, equally with believing Israel, 
may obtain salvation. Excluded from the divine commonwealth, 
the Idumzans were actually, as the prediction says, made slaves by 
David, 2 Sam. vill. 14, subdued by the Maccabees, 1 Macc. x. 27,31, 
and finally brought wholly into subjection by Hyrcanus. Josephus, 
Archeol. 1. xii. c. 9. § 1. 6. 15.§4. Compare also the observations 
on ver. 6. 

V.13. The Apostle quotes another saying from the Old Testa- 
ment in order to confirm what goes before. This time it is taken 
from Mal. i. 3. Jehovah there, by the mouth of his prophet, up- 
braids the people of Israel with having forsaken and despitefully. 
entreated Him, although upon them he had showered down blessings, 
whereas the Edomites, who yet sprang from the same progenitor, 
were living under oppression. Accordingly that saying too speaks 
of the nation standing without the Theocracy, and not of indivi- 


CHAPTER Ix. v. 13, 14,15. 319 


duals; nay, the subject is not so much as reception into the external 
Theocracy, far less inward conversion, but outward prosperity 
alone. 

Nevertheless, the Calvinists, and in their sense likewise certain 
Catholics, like Dionysius Carthusianus, remark upon the passage: 
Odisse est velle gratiam juste subtrahere. So too Salmeron, Disp. 
4, inc. 9. 

μισεὺν Stands here not positively but privatively. It marks merely 
a miner degree of love for Esau than for Jacob. When a Hebrew 
compares a less with a greater love, he is wont to call the former 
hatred. See Gen. xxix. 30, 31. Deut. xxi. 15. Prov. xiii. 24. Matt. 
vi. 24. Luke xiv. 26. (Comp. Matt. x. 37.) John xii. 25. Com- 
pare Glassius Rhet. sacra. 1, III. tr. 8, can. 19. It is shocking to 
hear the gross predestinarian explain this hatred, as if it were a per- 
sonal antipathy of God towards Esau, in consequence of which he 
withheld from him his grace. ‘To maintain such a misanthropy on 
the part of God, when the New Testament extols his φιλανθρωπία, 
Tit. ii. 4, is to be met with by the saying: ἀγαπᾷς yde τὰ ὄντα πάντα, 
καὶ οὐδὲν βδελύσσῃ ὧν ἐποίησας, οὐδὲ yae ἂν μισὼν τι κατεσκεύασας: Wis- 
dom of Sol. xi. 24. So long as ἃ creature has in it any thing divine, 
that creature God cannot hate, for τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἥδεται. Now 
so long as there exists in the rational and moral being a manifestation 
of conscience, there is certainly something divine in it. Every man, 
accordingly, in whom conscience has not been wholly effaced, is 
necessarily an object of divine love. How it lies with God to invest 
one individual with fewer, and another with more privileges upon 
earth, considering that every inferiority and tribulation may prove 
beneficial to the soul, Sirach declares, xxxvi. 11, 12, in a way simi- 
lar to Paul. 


ῬΑ ab lie 


GOD HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO IMPART TO WHOM, AND IN WHAT-~ 
SOEVER WAY, HE PLEASES, THE TOKENS OF HIS LOVE. ACCORDING- 
LY HE IS ALSO FREE TO PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS OF JUSTIFICATION, 
UNDER WHICH THE GENTILES NO LESS, NAY EVEN MORE NUMEROUSLY, 
THAN THE JEWS, OBTAIN MERCY. v. 14—24. 


V.14. Result of what has been said. To charge God with un- 
righteousness, would be contrary to the declaration, Deut. xxxii. 4, 
as it is to the entire doctrinal system of the Old Testament. This 
can never, therefore, be the scope of Paul. 

Ver. 15. In order to evince that the freedom, ascribed in the pre- 


320 CHAPTER PX vied Os 


ceding context to God, supposes no unrighteousness in him, the 
Apostle shows that the Scripture, in express words, represents God’s 
mercy as independent of all human deserts and claims. Erasmus, 
accordingly, states the connection in perfect conformity to the design 
of Paul: Absit ut ejusmodi cogitatio subeat animum cujusque, neque 
sic interpretetur, quod in Exodo Moysi loquitur Deus. ‘To oppose 
the gainsayer with so stern a Scripture was harsh, but the Apostle 
seems to delight in assailing, with iron front, the pretensions of 
righteousness by works. Bengel pertinently observes: Alia est sen- 
tentia verborum Pauli, qua satisfacit responsatoribus operariis, alia 
mitior latet in enigmate verborum pro fidelibus. Etiam in sacris 
scripturis, presertim ubi a thesi ventum est ad hypothesin, za ἤθη» 
non modo οἱ λόγοι, expendi debent. Et tamen commentarius nullus 
ita planus esse potest, quem facilius quam Pauli textum intelligat 
operarius. ‘The Apostle’s argumentation is what the Rabbins call 
my m1, confirming by another, any saying doubtful to the adversary. 
A want of simplicity and acuteness seduced several expositors, de- 
sirous of removing the decretum absolutum from this and the follow- 
ing verses, to cut the knot, by putting them, up to the 20th, into the 
mouth of a Jew, imbued with the Pharisaic principles of a fate, and 
here brought forward as the opponent of the Apostle; so that it would 
be such a person, who adduces the following texts as objections 
against Paul. Origen was the first to adopt this course. So Chry- 
sostom in regard to ver. 16, Jerome ad Hedib. qu. 10. (This father, and 
so likewise Photius, strangely enough, in the 20th verse, thus, some- 
what unskilfully, make Paul reply to the opposer of predestination: Ex 
eo quod respondes Deo et caluniniam facis, ostendis te esse liberi arbi- 
trii, et facere quod vis, vel tacere vel loqui{!] So too Camerarius, 
Kohlreif, but in particular Heumann, who takes great credit to him- 
self for the exposition. Wolf long ago stated many solid objections 
toit. The following are counter arguments: 1. The Apostle is wont, 
in refutation, never to be satisfied with a μὴ γένοιτο, but follows it up 
with a proposition by which the opponent is repelled, Rom. iil. 6: ων 
“St; vi. 2,2; xi.1. 2. It would then be necessary with Heumann, 
to render the yae in τῷ yae Maoy, but. ‘This is contrary to the rules 
of the language. It may indeed be conjoined with ἀλλά, as enim 
with at; even then, however, it is not per se, part. adv. 3. Paul 
never makes his opponent’s arguments with texts of Scripture; these 
he keeps for himself. 4. In ver. 19 the οὖν indicates clearly a fresh 
objection on the part of the adversary, which has been derived no 
farther back than from ver. 17 and 18. Had the preceding words 
been one and all the opponent’s, this zeecs οὖν would have been 
wholly redundant. 5. The defenders of this exposition gain nothing, 
for the words which, by their own admission, were delivered by 
Paul, ver. 10—13, are no less strong than the following. ‘The text 
adduced«by Paul is taken from Ex. xxxiii. 19, and quoted literally 
as it stands in the LXX. It there occurs in the following connection. 


CHAPTER IX. v. 15. 321 


Moses had entertained a wish to behold a preternatural manifestation 
of the Divine Being. ‘To a certain extent God vouchsafed it to him, 
but appends the words before us in order that the patriarch might not 
be uplifted, but might understand that so great a privilege had been 
imparted to him by free grace alone, and not upon the ground of his 
own worthiness. Accerdingly the Hebrew words 13n and om, to 
which the Greek éacecy and ocxceveew answer, are rather to be trans- 
lated, **to vouchsafe tokens of love and favour.’’ (Clericus, ad 
Exod. i. 1, translates: favebo cui faveo; the sense faveo is correct, 
but the explanation which Clericus gives of the tenses in Hebrew, 
as if God means to say: Henceforward I shall be gracious to those 
to whom I am so now, is improbable. ‘The two tenses here are 
aorists.) In that way we should avoid being led by the Greek and 
English terms to suppose, that a positive temporal or even eternal 
reprobatio was spoken of; as if it stood in God’s absolute good plea- 
sure what souls he chooses to let perish in their sins, without yield- 
ing them any help. ‘The repetition of the verb, with the relative, in 
the minor proposition, expresses, according to a Hebrew idiom, the 
unconditional nature of the transaction. So 2Sam. xv. 20, pin 
ὨΝΤΦΝ Op pins), “I go whither I may.” So likewise Exod. xvi. 
23. So frequently in Arabic, the phrase, ‘He did what he did,’”’ 
ὃ. 6. what he chose to do. Such forms of speech as these are parti- 
eularly common in Vita Timuri, Auct. Ebn Arabschah, ed. Golius, 
p- 6, ete. Accordingly, the sense of the divine declaration is cor- 
rectly given by Hunnius: Nemo poterit sibi demereri meam miseri- 
cordiam, ex mero beneplacito voluntatis mez misereor cujus misereor, 
sine respectu propriz dignitatis hominum, aut humani meriti inter- 
ventu. He proceeds to add in regard to the New Testament period: 
Cujus autem Dominus velit misereri, id non opus est ex humana 
ratione divinare, aut conjecturis colligere, aut abyssum majestatis 
scrutari aut in celum ascendere, sed prope est verbum fidei revelans 
nobis, quos Dominus certo misericordia sua dignari velit. Bengel: 
Nemini licet cum Deo ex syngrapha agere. ‘The bearing of the 
declaration, moreover, upon God’s relationship to the Jews, Lim- 
borch places still more distinctly in the light: Inde liquet injustum 
non esse Deum in eligendis beneficiis suis libertate uti, eaque largiri 
eni vult, idque vel sine ulla conditione, vel sub aliqua eaque qualicun- 
que ili placuerit, atque istos a beneficiis suis excludere quotquot 
conditionem a se prescriptam rejiciunt, aut acceptare recusant. Quia 
enim miserationes et beneficia sunt quid indebitum, ideo non tantum 
ipsa beneficia, sed et conditio, qua prestita beneficia obtineri possint, 
a benefactoris arbitrio dependent. It is to be considered as an artful 
subterfuge to evade the doctrine of predestination, when even with 
regard to this declaration of Paul’s, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- 
phylact, dScumenius, Pelagius and Ambrose suppose, that God used 
these words only in respect of those whose good works he foresaw. 
Pelagius: Hoe recto sensu ita intelligitur; illius miserebor quem 
prescivi posse misericordiam-promereri, ut jam tune illius sim mi- 
41 


322 CHAPTER Ix. v. 15, 16. 


sertus. Comp. the forced Pelagian interpretation of the text in 
Augustine, c. Julian, |. I. c. 131.* 

V.16. From God’s words to Moses, the Apostle infers, that all 
human exertions are unable to achieve worthiness, and with that a 
title to tokens of love, on the part of God. Bengel: Non quo irri- 
tum sit recte velle et, quod magis est, recte currere sive contendere, 
sed quod velle et currere operariorum nil efliciat. So does the 
Apostle speak, verse 30 and 31, of a not following after, on the part 
of the Gentiles, which yet attains the end, and of a following after 
by the self-righteous Jews, which does not; and immediately at ver. 
32, adds the cause why the following after of the Jews was of no 
avail, viz. because they sought to attain by the Zeya νόμου, what is 
attainable by the πίστις alone. ‘That the will must be present on the 
part of the individual to be forgiven, and that his not willing hinders his 
receiving forgiveness, is declared at Matt. xxiii. 37. John v. 40. They 
who desire to obtain mercy, must run, 1 Cor.ix.21. Heb. xii. 1. 
Nay, by violent desire, must the sinner force his way into the king- 
dom of heaven, Matt. xi. 12. (For such is the exposition which 
the language there demands.) Compare what St. Paul says of 
himself, 1 Cor. ix. 26. Phil. iii. 13.- 2‘Tim. iv.'7. When besides 
all this, the compassion of God is placed in direct contrast with hu- 
man endeavours, it clearly results, that under human endeavour is 
meant a proud, self-sufficient endeavour, which trusts to establish a 
claim not upon God’s compassion, but upon his justice. Imme- 
diately afterwards Pharaoh is brought forward as an instance of such 
an obstinate running in ways of one’s own. Jerome, Ep. 133, ad 
Ctesiph. ed. Vall.: Velle et currere meum est, sed ipsum meum sine 


* In the review spoken of in the preface, the author thus states his present 
views upon this passage: “In ver. 15, ἐλεήσω ὃν dv ἐλεῶ κτλ.» the emphasis is 
usually laid upon the repetition, and considered as expressive of indepen- 
dence and mere good pleasure, whereas it ought to be laid upon the words 
ἐλεεῖν and οἰκτείρειν, according to their peculiar import. ‘The reasons are: 
Firstly, because it is only in this way that a suitable connection can be 
effected betwixt the preceding and succeeding context. The proposition, 
“There is no unrighteousness with God, for he saith to Moses, It depends 
upon myself alone to whom I will show mercy,” is much less stringent than, 
«There is no unrighteousness with God, for he says to Moses, It is mercy 
when I show mercy to any.” Moreover, in ver. 16, we find ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος 
Θεοῦ expressly put, proving in the clearest manner, that it was upon that the 
emphasis lay. Besides, even with regard to the Hebrew text, Ex. xxxiii. 19, 
this construction is by much the more suitable. Doubtless, we still obtain an 
appropriate meaning, if God says to Moses: I will, as thou (ver.17), hast 
found grace in my sight, make all my goodness pass before thee. Itis of my 
free will if I show mercy to any one.” We obtain a still better one, 
however, when, with grammatical precision, we understand the preterites 
‘nym and ΓΙ, as referring to the practical bestowal of grace, and the 
futures jTN and DNS to the incomplete, or intentional: “ΤῸ whom I wish 
well, to him do I show myself a well-wisher.” I cannot, however, agree with 
the opinion that it is quite inadmissible to take the words of the text, as ex- 
pressive of free good pleasure.” 


CHAPTER IX. V. 16, 17. 322 


Dei semper auxilio, non erit meum.... Peto ut accipiam, et quum 
accepero rursus peto. Avarus sum ad accipienda beneficia Dei, nec - 
ille deficit in dando, nee ego satior in accipiendo. Comp. Origen, 
De principiis, 1. iii. § 18. Where, in illustration of Paul’s expres- 
sion, he alludes to Ps. 127: ‘* Except the Lord build the house, they 
labour in vain that build 11. And yet the builders must labour. 
Compare likewise the beautiful words of Gregory Naz. upon this 
passage. Orat. xxxi. in Ev. Mat. 19, and Augustine, ad Simpl. J. 1. 
qu. 1. As to what further respects the metaphorical expression reé- 
zew, it may be borrowed in a general way from a restless running to 
and fro, or it may also be derived from the race course of the prize 
runners, according to an image very common with the Apostle, 1Cor. 
ix. 24. Gal. v. 7. Heb. xii. 1; in which figurative sense profane 
authors likewise use reéyo. The peculiar application of this verse 
to the Jews, is as follows: Would you by bodily extraction and ful- 
filment of the law, proudly merit the kingdom of the Messias; to 
these God pays no attention, requiring of us to accept of salvation 
through Christ as a gift of free grace.* 

V.17. The Apostle means to bring proof from history, that God 
by no means spares the obstinate; rather does his long suffering tend 
to the destruction of such, when they persist in their pride of heart. 
Thus Pharaoh beheld six plagues brought, one after another, upon 
his land, at the time when God’s declaration, quoted by Paul, was 
executed upon him. Actuated by his headstrong disposition, he 
still, however, persevered in unbelief towards Moses, and rebellion 
against God. God had endured with patience (v.22) his contumacy, 


* In the review already alluded to, Dr. Tholuck quotes the following ob- 
servations of Beck: “ Why then, in these genitives τοῦ θέλοντος, &c., to which 
Ἐστί 15 Supplied, is not the simple and primary genitive meaning retained, 
expressing the closest and earliest relation of dependence? From the ulti- 
mate idea of procession, derivation, out of which original right and authority 
emanate, arises the conception: To belong tc any one by virtue of the causal- 
nexus, to lie within his essential and inward province or domain, a conception 
which here connects itself quite logically with the foregoing proposition, 
where the subject itself is designated according to its inmost peculiarity. We 
have here, then, a decision given respecting its essential appurtenance, that 
viz. by which right and authority over it are determined. Instead of this, the 
genitive connection is interpreted solely of outward power, competence and’ 
effect, so that the exposition never emerges from its circle of exterior being, 
to its inward basis. Even in the case of the more disguised translation “it 
concerns” or “it rests with,’ the proper accent, inward appertaining, is still 
blunted, the mistake against which we contend, as if the éxadys, capriciously 
and unjustly falls, so entirely into the province of the electing party, is en- 
couraged, the matter always appearing as mere outward necessity, and not 
as ὦ law involved in or pertaining to its essence.’ On this quotation, Dr. Tho- 
luck remarks, “ Here too we must agree in opinion. The translation, ‘it rests 
with,’ is more especially to be rejected, and by no means fits the connection. 
Above all others, we would prefer “it does not therefore depend,” explaining 
the nature of this relation of dependence as the author does, “it is not within 
le ressort—participation in the kingdom of God, has not as its causa primaria, 
human efforts; on the contrary, God is the independent original of mercy. 


324 CHAPTER Ix. V. 17. 


but, notwithstanding, did not alter his plans. From that forbearance, 
it was by no means to be concluded, that God would finally allow 
the stubborn king to have his will. In the event of perseverance 
in obstinacy, God had resolved, through the medium of his patience, 
to make the self-willed arrogance, issue in the still worse destruction 
of Pharaoh, (Rom. ii. 5, and the observations on it,) but in an increase 
of glory to himself. In this way, Pharaoh’s example strikingly 
shows, that, by a running in his own strength, and by efforts con- 
trary to the divine purposes, man is utterly unable to accomplish any 
thing; on the contrary, because of God’s long-suffering, and just of 
that, the longer he persists, the more does he plunge himself in ruin. 
This sense, quite founded in the connection, is developed with sin- 
gular ability in the Acta Syn. Dordr. Remonstr. p. 139—i45. Stern 
Calvinists, such as Beza, Peter Martyr, Pareus and Gomar give the 
Apostle’s sentiment the following sense: “1 have created thee, O 
Pharaoh, to make of thee a vessel of wrath, by whose perdition I 
may display my omnipotence.’ Were it possible for God to speak 
thus to man, then alas for us! What are we but dwarfs, who must 
be content to be formed by the hand of an unconquerable Cyclops, 
and broken into pieces again as toys for his amusement? The point 
which the expositors and doctrinalists of this school have overlooked, 
is, that we must never suppose God to act, except in complete har- 
mony with himself, and consequently with the whole of his attributes. 
In the decretum absolutum, however, justice would act and determine 
without wisdom and without love. Augustine by just consequence, 
had written (De gratia et lib. arb. c, 21): Quis non ἰδία judicia divina 
contremiscat, quibus agit Deus in cordibus etiam malorum hominum 
quidquid vult, reddens tamen eis secundum merita eorum? — — His 
et talibus testimoniis sctipturarum satis manifestatur operari Deum 
in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocunque vo- 
luerit, sive ad bona pro sua misericordia, sive ad mala pro meritis 
eorum, judicio utique suo, aliquando aperto, aliquando occulto, sem- 
per tamen justo. Pursuant of this idea, Gomar taught, with the 
supralapsarians: ‘* There is no injustice in God’s condemning the 
sinner, for, along with the condemnation, he has also ordained the 
means to that end,i. e. sin, so that he condemns no one, without 
having first plunged him into sin;”’ (Halesii, epp. ed. Mosh. p. '753,) 
and pursuantly, too, of the same opinion, these stern Calvinists here 
say: In order to gain his end, God himself put tempting thoughts 
into Pharaoh’s soul. (There can be no doubt that God tempts, but 
not as the devil does; the one tempts, wf subruat, the other, wt coro- 
net, 1 Cor. x. 13.) Augustine: Excitavi te, ut contumacius resisteres, 
non tantum permittendo, sed multa etiam tam intus quam foris ope- 
rando. ‘There has thus, it appears, been an exchange of parts, and 
Satan has resigned his office to God. It is God who goes about like 
a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, while Satan rejoices 
that the Most High, from whose hand there is no escape, casts the 
victim into his jaws. Moreover, if, in this way, God be made the 


CHAPTER Ix. v. 17. 9398 


author of sin, pantheism is clearly established, the nature of sin itself 
denied, and all distinction between good and evil done away. Hence 
it is, that those pantheistical mystics, the Sufi, who deny the differ- 
ence betwixt good and bad, God being, according to them, the one 
sole agent, shadow as well as light, and all individual beings merely 
semblance, make Pharaoh, who, they say, was but a different mirror 
of God’s omnipotence from Moses, thus pray to the Divine Being, 
(Methnewi des Dschelaleddin Rumi, cod. MS. Bibl. reg. Ber. t. i. 
Ρ. 158): 


From that fountain whence thou mad’st the face of Moses’ light, 
Thou hast darkened mine, O Lord, until ’tis blacker than the night. 
Yet better can a star expect than even the moon to be, 

Eclipses spare not it, and spare I know they will not me. 

Whate’er the Hebrew prophet’s worth, ’tis true I am as good, ‘ 
But with supreme dominion reigns thine axe throughout thy wood. 
Here graciously it grafts the twig into the fostering root, 

There severs with relentless stroke, the stock and tender shoot. 


Those expositors who always fall back upon the foreknowledge of 
God, as Gicumenius, Ambrose, Theodoret, are in total perplexity 
respecting this sentence. Others among the moderns adopt a con- 
nection of the ideas different from that we have stated. Erasmus: 
Neque culpari debet Deus, si nostris malis bene utitur. Imo hoc 
ipsum summz bonitatis argumentum. Wolff: ‘So much is com- 
passion concerned, that God exercised forbearance even towards the 
stifl-necked Pharaoh, and contrary to his will.”? Stolz: ‘*So far was 
Pharaoh’s running from gaining his end, that he rather wrought into 
the hands of God.’’ It is, moreover, to be well-considered, that only 
after the sixth miracle, consequently after numerous proofs of contu- 
macy, did God address these words to Pharaoh, and that he even 
desired his conversion, which is shown by the question immediately 
following: ‘As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, and 
wilt not let them go?’ Yea, as Origen observes, De prine. 1. iii. 
6. 1, § 11: The miracles for awhile, and to a certain extent, 
fulfilled their end, for, at the fourth sign, Pharaoh seriously deter- 
mined to let the Jews depart, at least three days’ journey, (Ex. viii. 
28.) 
λέγευ ἡ yearn τῷ Pagad, in place of ὁ Θεὸς xard τὴν γεαφήν; 50 also 
Gal. iii. 8, 22; iv. 80. So ἄο the Rabbins, in their quotations, in- 
terchange DW 78 and 21NI7 7px, and denote both by the abbrevia- 
tion 728. In the LXX., the verse which is taken from Ex. ix. 16, 
TUNS: καὶ ἕνεχεν rovrs Sveryerdys, iva ἐνδείξωμαν ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, 
καὶ ὅπως κτλ. For the ἐξήγειξα of Paul, and the διετηδήθης of the 
LXX., there stands in the Hebrew, ὙΠ. The sense of this 
word, is most accurately rendered by the LXX. for Tnyn here sig- 
nifies to let stand, to keep, the Hiphil in Hebrew, intimating not 
merely the effecting of what the Kal expresses, but a preservation in 
the condition which is intimated by the Kal, as is especially the case 


326 CHAPTER ΙΧ. Y. 17. 


with the Hiphil of 7m. Now, as there are many verbs in the Hel- 
lenistic, which answer to the Hebrew Hiphil, they likewise assume 
the special sense which that bears. ‘Thus δωπουεῦν, as translation of 
mnn, also signifies in the New Testament, fo preserve in life, 1 Pet. 
iil. 18. And thus, too, does iyeveew which properly means, fo set 
up, (in the LXX. for apn) here bear that Hiphil-sense of letting 
stand. In this way, it has been translated by the Syrian, viz. kept 
standing, (Ephr. Syr. Op. T. i. p. 46.) ‘The Arabian, likewise, 
translates in the Polygl. in Ex. ix. 16: “1 have kept thee in life.” 
Even in Heb. 7 signifies, fo remain, Ex. ix. 28; Lev. xiii. 5; 
Dan. x. 17, and thus the Hiphil is so much the more naturally trans- 
lated, to allow to remain. It gives additional recommendation to 
this meaning, that the connection immediately suggests it; for Pharaoh 
might already have been carried off by the preceding plagues, and 
still more might this have happened in the threatened pestilence. 
Calvin, who rejects this meaning in the present passage, and, in op- 
position to it, translates constituit, approves it in his Comm. on Ex. 
ix. 16; even he acknowledging it to be more agreeable to the con- 
nection. Many Calvinists take ἐγείφειν directly in the sense, to 
create. Beza: feci ut existeres; Anselm still more dreadfully: Cum 
malus esses, prodigiis quasi sopitum excitavi, wf in malitia persis- 
teres atque deterior fieres. Is it the Devil or God who thus speaks? 
Others, as Cocceius, take it in the meaning, ‘ad dignitatem evehi,”’ 
which, however, as Calvin observes, is less demonstrable from the 
language, and would be less agreeable to the connection of the Mo- 
saic narrative.* 

ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαυ x72. The sense of this minor proposition, we shall 
thus be able to express: Usque adeo non connivi in sceleribus tuis, 
etiamsi propter μαχεξοθυμίαν meam ita fortasse tibi videretur, ut eo 
graviore ruina te perditurus sim. It was not deceit on the part of 
God, as the Calvinist maintains, which made the various signs and 
wonders overpass Pharaoh, in order thereby to bring about the end 
of his destruction; it was compassionate long-suffering, as ver. 22 
asserts, desirous of giving opportunity for amendment. Indeed, as 
we have already observed, the stubborn king had at last, in. some 
degree relented, (Ex. viii. 28, and did so still more at an after period, 
chap. x. 24; ix. 27.) Only the fowls came and devoured up the 
seed that was sown in his heart. ‘This long-suffering, however, was 
of such a sort, that the stiff-necked man might mistake its intention, 
and hence, intimation was also given him, that if he would not let 
the people go, it would serve both to aggravate the ruin brought upon 
him, and to manifest the power of God, who knows to weave evil 


ἘΠῚ consider it as decided, says Dr. Tholuck, that the ξξήγειρα must not be in- 
terpreted according to the διητηρήϑης of the LXX. as I have done in my com- 
mentary, conscious at the time that it was not natural, and solely because I 
believed I could, in that way, better refute the Calvinistic view. Beyond all 
doubt, the correct exposition is, “I have set thee up—brought thee forward 
(in history).” 


CHAPTER 1X: V..17; 18. 327 


itself into the plan of the world in such a way as to promote his own 
glory. Gregory of Nyssa, in Niceph. Cat. in Octat. has the fine 
circumlocution: EQ’ Gy ἐπιμένεις ἀπειθὼν, xneveov axav τὸν Θεὸν ὃν 
ἑχουσίως ἀρνῇ. ‘There obtains what Antonin. |. '7, 6. 35, ascribes to 
the φύσις, and expresses by the very significant compound ἐπυπερυ- 
teénew: Πᾶν τὸ ἐνιστάμενον καὶ ἀντιβαυνον ἐπιπερυτρέπευ xou κατατάσσει 
εἰς τὴν εἱμαρμένην καὶ μέφος ἑαυτῆς movece We must not then, for ἃ mo- 
ment, leave out of view, that this ὅπως x72. relates only to the event 
of Pharaoh’s continuing unconverted, by means of that long-suffering, 
for once again he is expressly called upon by God, to repent, Ex. 
x. 3, “* How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me.” 

τὴν δύναμίν μου. In Hebrew n>. It is impossible to conceive a 
mightier conflict, than that betwixt an impenitent human heart and 
its God. But the Divine Being gains glory, whatever the issue be, 
whether blessing or perdition. Does the proud heart yield the vic- 
tory, it then gives thanks of itself to Him who conquered it; does it 
persist in obstinacy, then the witnesses of the struggle bring the 
praise and adoration, which they have learnt to be due, partly to the 
mercy of God, partly to the infinite power and wisdom, by which he 
knows how to prepare a triumph for his kingdom, even from van- 
quished foes. 

ἐν πάσῃ τῇ yy. As the Jews themselves everywhere spoke of their 
deliverance by a mighty hand, the name of God was, in point of fact, 
celebrated by that means in all quarters. ‘The wondrous downfall 
of Pharaoh was recounted by the Greeks, Artapanus, (Eus. Prep. 
Ey. 1. ix. c. 29,) and Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. 1. If]. c. 39), and by 
the Latin, Trogus (Justini Hist. 1. xxxvi.c. 2). By the Koran, the 
story was still more widely spread, and Christianity will publish it 
to the end of the world. 

V. 18. The Apostle draws the inference from the matter of fact in 
regard to Moses, and from the same in regard to Pharaoh. ‘The 
oxanevvev, as here ascribed to God, has been especially urged by the 
Calvinists. By Calvin himself it is expounded as follows: Indurandi 
verbum quum Deo in Scripturis tribuitur, non solum permissionem (ut 
volunt diluti quidam moderatores) sed divine quoque ire actionem 
significat; nam res omnes externe, que ad excecationem reprobo- 
ruin faciunt, illius ire sunt instrumenta. Satan ipse, qui intus efli-, 
caciler agit, wlius est minister ut non nisi ejus imperio agat. 
Docet et Solomon, non modo precognitum fuisse impiorum interitum, 
sed impios ipsos fuisse destinato creatos ut perirent, Prov. xvi. 4. 
Some few modern theologians likewise, whose rationalism allowed 
them to suppose that Paul had committed a mistake, would have the 
words so explained, and agreeably, as they supposed, to the gram- 
matical and historical interpretation. So Ammon on the passage, 
and, in like manner, in a former age, the English rationalist Morgan. 
It is, however, just that sort of interpretation which militates most 
strongly against the Calvinistic opinion, as has been already shown 
by its authors, Grotius on this passage, and Clericus on Ex. ix. For 


328 CHAPTER Ix. v. 18. 


as in general the Eastern, much more than an inhabitant of the west, 
seeks to trace up all the events of life to the first cause, 7. e. God, so 
do we find this more particularly manifested in the Jewish history. 
Even such occurrences as without properly emanating from God, 
merely stand under his governance, are referred back to him, without 
any design on the part of the writer to deny the self-determining 
power of man. Agreeably to this law, which prevails in the Jewish 
as it generally does in all eastern style and history, God himself is 
wont to be represented as the cause of sin,both where he but per- 
mits it_(cvyzopyroxds), 2 Sam. xii. 11; xvi. 10. 1 Kings xxii. 22. 
Is. |xiil. 17.) and even where, as inthe present.case, he callsatforth 
by certain occasions (ἀφορμητικῶς), Deut. ii. 30. Ps. ev, 25. 1 
Kings xi. 23. Nay, in case of a refusal to consider God as being 
merely in this metonymic way, the author of such actions, a similar 
office would be assigned to Him as to the Devil, for the same action 
of which God, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, is called the author, is ascribed, 1 
Chron. xxi. 1, to the Devil as author. A suitable parallel to these 
Old Testament texts is afforded by certain quite similar passages of 
the Koran, Sure. xiv. v. 32, ‘*God leads evil doers astray and does 
what he will.’’ So likewise, Sure. iv. ver. 90, and vii. ver. 139. 
Moreover, Sure. vii. ver. 180: ‘* Many genii and men have we 
formed for hell; these have hearts and they do not understand, eyes 
and see not, ears and they do not hear.’’ Sure. vii. ver. 146: “1 
will make the evil doers to see my signs and not believe,’”’ and in 
fine, Sure. v. ver. 46: ** God punishes whom he will, and pardons 
whom he will, for he is mighty above all.’’ Now in spite of the 
Koran thus decidedly denying, as it appears to do, the free agency 
of man, notwithstanding it teaches, “'That every man has his fate 
bound about his neck,” we still must maintain that it was not Ma- 
homet’s intention so absolutely to deny moral liberty to man. For 
not only do we find many passages in the Koran standing related to 
those we have quoted, in precisely the same way that certain pas- 
sages in the Old and New ‘Testament, ascribing freedom to man, are 
related to others in the same books, which trace back all to God, but 
we have, moreover, a tradition of Abu Harira, bearing the stamp of 
credibility, in which Mahomet expressly declares his ignorance on 
this subject (Tholuck, Ssufismus, sive ''heosophia Pantheistica Per- 
sarum, p. 234). In fine, the doctrinal affirmations upon the point, 

by which man is wholly robbed of all freedom, were not made by 
the Mahometan theologians previous to the second century of the 
Hedschira. ‘To the passages of the Koran, which declare the uni- 
versality of God’s grace in opposition to a decretum absolutum, be- 
long, for instance, the following, which are also akin to passages in 
the Bible, Sure. v. ver. 45; xx. ver. 84; iii. ver. 82: ** Whosoever 
is converted after his iniquity and amends, to him does God turn, for 
he is forgiving and merciful,’’ Sure. vii. ver. 156: I punish whom I 
will, but my grace extends to all men; of a truth I write it in the 
book of life for all who believe,” “*Sure. xiv. ver. 25: ** Beholdest 


CHAPTER IX. v. 18. 329 


thou not those who transform my grace into unbelief and so on.” 
Now inasmuch as God, unalterably faithful to his plan of conducting 
the Israelites out of Egypt, gave occasion, by a series of signs and 
wonders, for heightening the obstinacy of Pharaoh, the Old 'Testa- 
ment says that God hardened him. As an evidence, however, that 
this hardening was not to be ascribed to God as its proper author, it 
is again said in other passages, Exod. viii. 15, 28; ix. 34, that Pha- 
raoh hardened himself, and in others likewise, Exod. vii. 18, 22; 
vill, 11; ix. 7, that his heart was hardened without any reference to 
the cause. Moreover, at Exod. iii. 19, God speaks merely from a 
foreknowledge of the hardening of Pharaoh, and elsewhere the blame 
of their obduracy is cast upon men themselves, 1 Sam. vi. 6. 2 
Chron. xxxvi. 13. Ps. xev. Hos. xiii. 8. It ought to surprise us 
the less, when God, in consequence of bringing about the circum- 
stances under which the obstinate still more and more presume, is 
himself represented as the occasioner of their obstinacy, finding, as 
we do, that the man through whom, as the innocent occasion, some 
other comes under a delusion, is represented as its immediate author. 
Thus the injunction goes forth to Isaiah, (chap. vi. 10.) ‘* Make the 
heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their 
eyes.” ‘The Hebrew usus loquendi also occurs in the New Testa- 
ment. Partly we find, that here too Christ assigns ἀφορμητικὼς, as 
the purpose of his coming, what only arose out of it, in consequence 
of the perversity of men, Mat. x. 84. (See Grotius’ Annotations.) 
John ix. 39; partly Is. vi. 10 is applied in the same sense which it 
bears in the prophet, Mat. xiii. 15. Mark iv. 12. John xii. 40. 
Acts xxvili. 26, 27. Admirable are the remarks which the Greek 
fathers make upon this Jewish usus loquendi, and in quite a dis- 
tinguished way does Origen discuss St. Paul’s declaration, and the 
questions involved in it, Origen, Philocalia, c. 20, ed. Spenc., bor- 
rowed from De principiis, 1. III. c. 1. The thoughts, which he there 
developes, are as follows: You look upon Pharaoh as being either 
wholly depraved or not. In the former case, we no longer deplore 
his being condemned. But why then did God harden him? Harden- 
ing takes place upon a subject that is naturally soft. Suppose him, 
accordingly, not to have been altogether depraved, and that God 
closed up the heart that wanted to open itself to him, what injustice 
would that be on the part of God! With respect to that hardening, 
we ought much more to avoid imagining any particular action of God 
upon the soul; on the contrary, it is a consequence that results from 
the tokens of God’s love emanating incessantly, and in the same way 
to the corrupted human race, that one individual becomes ever more 
and more compliant with Divine grace, another ever more contu- 
macious and wicked. According to Hebrews vi. 7, 8, one and the 
same rain bringeth forth herbs upon one soil and thorns upon another. 
While one and the same sunbeam in this place softens and moistens, 
in that makes the earth dry and parched. So does God’s grace 
operate different effects on different hearts. Even affectionate mas- 
42 


330 CHAPTER Ix. v. 18. 


ters are wont to say to demoralized slaves, whom they have reared 
with much gentleness, I have spoilt you. But when a soul has for 
a time been hardened by the kindness of God, and then again re- 
pents, it derives from its obduracy one advantage, that of learning the 
quantity of the sinful virus within it. Hence just as physicians 
excite the diseased matter, and try to gather it to a point, in order the 
more thoroughly to heal, so also does God often do to the human 
heart.”’?. This last thought he extends in the Comm. in Exod. ed. 
Dela Rue, Tom. II. p. 114: ὥσπερ δὲ int τινων σωματικὼν παθημάτων, 
εἰς βάθος τοῦ, ἵν᾽ οὕτως εἴπω, κεχωρηκότος κακοῦ; ὃ LaTeds εἰς τὴν ἐπιφά- 
ψεῖαν διά φινων Φαρμάκων EAxEL καὶ ἐπισπαάταυ τὴν ὕλην, φΦλεγμονὰς χαλεπὰς 
ἐμποιὼν καὶ διουδήσευ ς. χαὶ πόνους πλείονας ὧν εἶχέ τις πεὶν Ext τὸ θεξα- 
πευθῆναν ddevoas’ ὥσπερ ἔρος ποιεῖν αὐτοῖς Ent λυσσοδήκτων, καὶ ἑτέφων 
τινὼν TH παξαπλήσια τούτοις πιεπονθότων᾽ οὕτως οἶμαυ χαὺ τὸν Θεὸν οἴκονο- 
μεῦν τὴν κρύφιον κακίαν εἰς τὸ βάθος xeYwenxway τῆς ψυχῆς. καὶ ὥσπερ 
λέγευ ὃ ἰατεὸς Enc xovdé τινος᾽ ἐγὼ φλεγμονὰς ποιήσω mei τὸν τόπον τῆς 
ἀνέσεως: καὶ διοιδῆσαν τάδε TG μέρη; ὥστε ἀπόστημα χαλεπὸν ἐφγάσασθαυ; 
λέγοντος δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ LarEeov, ὁ μὲν ἀκούων αὐτοῦ ἐπιστημονυκώτερος; οὐκ 
αὐτιάσεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπαινέσεταν τὰ τοιαῦτα οἱονεὶ ἀπειλοῦντα ἐδγάσασθοαι" 
ὁ δέ τις λέξει φάσκων ἀλλότξιον τῆς τῶν ἰατεὼν ἐπαγγελίας ποιεῦν; τὸ δὲον 
ὑγιάζειν, Ext φλεγμονὰς καὶ ἀποστήματα ἄγοντα" οὕτω δὲ οἶμαν xow τὸν 
Θεὸν elenxévar τὸ" ἐγὼ σχληδυνὼ τὴν xaedvay Φαραώ. ἢ Compare, more- 
over, Theodoret, qu. 12, in Exod. Basil, in Gicumen. Theodorus 
Mopsuest. and Diodorus 'Tars. in Niceph. Cat. in Octat. We have 
still to notice two forced explanations, by which the opponents of 
predestination endeavoured to maintain their cause. Herzog wanted 
to place a point of interrogation after the sentence; Rambach, Carp- 
zov, and Ernesti wished to take oxazevyew in the sense, to treat 
harshly. In support of this meaning they quote 2 Chron. x. 4, 
where there stands in the Hebrew 115) nx nw, but this passage 
proves nothing, as no accus. persone is added. At Job xxxix. 16, 
we find in the Hebrew Twp", and in the Greek ἀποσκληφύνω. The 
meaning, accordingly, is demonstrated in regard to neither of the 
languages. Independently of this, however, there is much against it. 


* And as in the case of certain bodily diseases, when the evil has (so to 
speak) penetrated into the inmost parts, the physician draws and brings forth 
the virus by certain medicines to the surface, causing more inflammations 
and tumours, and worse pains, than the patient suffered before his cure was 
attempted, which is the way in which they treat persons labouring under hy- 
drophobia, and others similarly affected; in like manner, methinks, does God 
deal with that secret distemper which has penetrated into the inmost soul. 
And just as the physician says, respecting such a patient, I will excite in- 
flammation around the place of the wound, and force such and such parts to 
swell, so as to produce a severe abscess; which, were any skilful person to 
hear, far from blaming he would commend the man for proposing such a 
practice, whereas the mere pretender will say, that when he produces an in- 
flammation or abscess, he does what is foreign to the vocation of a physician, 
whose duty it is to heal. Itis in this way I suppose God to have spoken, 
when he said, I will harden the heart of Pharaoh. 


CHAPTER IX. v. 18. 331 


As used by Paul, the word must have the same sense as in Exodus. 
The objection of ver. 19 would then be unsuitable. And so on.* 


* Dr. Tholuck now acknowledges that the meaning “severe treatment,” is, 
in respect of language, not inadmissible; while, with regard to the connection, 
it has, in the first place, this consideration in its favour, that only when so 
interpreted, does σκληρύνειν yield an answerable contrast to ἐλεεῖν. According 
to the whole nexus of the passage, ἐλεεῖν cannot be understood of the datio 
Jidei, as the remonstrants express themselves, which alone would form a strict 
antithesis to the σκληρύνειν, but solely of the bestowal of favours, such as those 
conferred upon Moses. Moreover it is to be observed that the Apostle’s quo- 
tation, ver. 17, speaks in the strongest way in favour of the meaning, fo treat 
severely. The character of this citation has not, by any means, been inves- 
tigated with sufficient care. Looking no farther than itself, can we suppose 
that Paul means to demonstrate, that God, of his own proper choice hardened 
the king? Whosoever closely investigates the nature of the Apostle’s cita- 
tions, must be convinced of the care and accuracy with which they are chosen. 
Why then has he not here done, what was the simplest and readiest thing for 
him to do, adduced one of the passages from the Old Testament, where it is 
said that “God hardened the heart of Pharaoh.” He would thus have proved, 
in the shortest way, the dogma ascribed to him, and the proposition with ἄρα, 
—in the sense which the Calvinist puts upon it,—would have followed with 
the utmost logical strictness. In place of this, however, there is brought for- 
ward, as the main idea in the Apostle’s citation, That God wished to glorify 
himself by the stubborn king. If then we inquire of history, in what way did 
he glorify himself? It was, we find, that he σκληρὰ ἔδειξε (Ps.1x.3), and by his 
dreadful overthrow. In this manner, ver. 17, when we understand σκληρύνειν 
to mean hard treatment, is closely connected. Well; but is ver. 19 not con- 
trary to such an interpretation! We think we may say, No. Is the import 
of the citation “My special reason for bringing you forward, was, that (by 
thy downfall) I might display my power,” and does there follow it the in- 
ference, “ Consequently, he treats with severity whom he chooses” we might 
well ask: If God, in the appointment of our lot, binds himself by no claims 
on our side, how can he then blame us, for not binding ourselves by him? 
He does what he pleases to do.”,. While Dr. Tholuck admits, however, that 
this meaning of σκληρύνειν is rather favoured than refuted by the connection, 
he maintains, on the other hand, that nothing is hereby gained towards the 
removal of the offence taken at this section of the Epistle; and so there is no 
use in deviating from the usual interpretation. For when Faul, in order to 
prove that the goodness shown by God to man, is based upon no claim of 
right whatsoever, but is pure mercy, appeals to the fact, that, in the opposite 
case, God says to Pharaoh, that on this sole account, he had raised him up, 
that (as ver. 22, adds), he might show his might and his wrath, 7. 6. that 
he might treat him with severity, almost the self-same offence is occasioned, as © 
when we put in its place, that he might harden him. The answer to the ob- 
jection is as follows: The Apostle wants to show that in the divine πεύθεσις,ΟΥ 
plan of the universe projected from all eternity, God is the primary and sole 
cause. How can he do so more strikingly than by showing in the instance 
of Pharaoh, that even his hardening was ordained by God, and subserved 
the divine purposes, no less than the rich display of God’s fae? That the 
hardening of the Egyptian was, on one side, ordained by God, no disciple of 
Christian theology can deny. It is an essential doctrine of Christianity, that 
God would not permit evil, unless he were Lord over it, and that he permits 
it, because it cannot act as a check upon his plan of the world, but must be 
equally subservient to him as good, the only difference being, that the former 
is so compulsorily, the latter optionally. That, on the other hand, evil is 
something hostile to God, and therefore not an object of his volition, and that 


332 CHAPTER Ix. v. 19, 20. 


V.19. The haughty Jew, only concerned to find a door of escape 
for his unbelief, lays hold of the subterfuge for which a handle was 
given him, in the last words of the Apostle. He would like to de- 
volve upon God, the ἀπιστία which the Apostle blames as the ground 
of his rejection. (Ch. ix. 32; x. 8, 9; xi. 23.) 

éeecs οὖν is the Rabbinical 57 Non. So ὁ. xi. 19; and ἀλλ᾽ Zeer τις» 
in 1 Cor. xv. 35. Jas. ii. 18. In the question, the subject, God, is 
left out, agreeably to the tone of mind in a man under the influence 
of passion. Μέμφεσθαι, with the Hellenists, means sometimes fo 
blame, 2 Mace. ii. 7. Heb. viii. 8; sometimes fo complain, to be dis- 
pieased, Sirach xi. 7; xli. 10. Hesychius, μέμφεται, airiarar, κατα- 
γινώσκει. The ἔτι is designative, even now, after you have your- 
self said, that he hardens whom he will.”’ ’AvSésnxe, the pret. Indic. 
agreeably to a Hebraism, in place of the aor. opt. 

V.20. A proper answer to this question of the obdurate Jew, the 
Apostle could not return, inasmuch as the objection rested altogether 
upon a misconception and perversion of the texts quoted. Accord- 
ingly, he repels the perversion (comp. ch. iii. 6.) ‘The Gemara 
sometimes gives a preliminary answer, for the purpose, generally, 
of turning aside an argument; it is called Syd pnt 79, ‘on account 
of being much pressed.” ‘The phrase for it is 7 8) 1 AN, “not 
merely this, but this,’ Halichoth. Olam, B. III. c. ii. §183. What 
Paul properly intended, however, by bringing forward these passages 
of Scripture, he declares in vers. 22 and 23. "1Ὸ be sure, he might 
have simply told the Jew, that he only abused the texts, and what 
was added in elucidation of them, nay, purposely perverted them. 
But instead of answering thus, he does what was done by our Saviour 


as evil, it has its source in man, came not here into consideration. In the case 
before us, the divine agency must be limited to the fact: That God brought 
about those circumstances, which make a heart disposed to evil still harder. ‘That 
God did this to Pharaoh is shown by history. That such is the only sense 
in which it is said that God hardened Pharaoh, is evinced by the fact of its 
being declared in the context, that Pharaoh hardened himself, Lev. viii. 15; viii. 
28; ix. 34. Withrespect to the question, Whether this meaning suits the con- 
nection of the passage? we here likewise reply in the affirmative. The hard 
treatment, which, in contrast to ἐλεεῖν, ought here to be spoken of, was effected 
by God’s bringing about the circumstances under which the king’s heart grew 
hard. The difference betwixt the two, accordingly, would but be this: When 
the Apostle says, “ Consequently he treats harshly whom he will,” he states 
the proposition in its general significance, when he says, “ Consequently he 
hardens whom he will,” he states it with reference to the specialties of the 
present case, in which hardening formed the transition to the downfall or 
severe treatment. V.19,—as hardening merely means to place ina situation 
in which one hardens oneself,—would be connected precisely as in the former 
construction of the words. For that v. 19—21, cannot serve to vindicate for 
σκληρύνειν, the meaning to harden inwardly is demonstrable from the fact, that 
here the sole question is, Whether God has the right to set up any one in the 
history of the world as object of his ὀργή. Comp. ver. 22. Now, this har- 
monizes with the citation, ver. 17, which does not declare that God can cause 
obduracy, “in whomsoever he will,” but that he can and does give the wicked 
up as a prey to destruction, in order thereby to reveal his might. 


CHAPTER Ix. v. 20. 333 


himself, replies, not so much to the question of the opponent, as to 
the disposition from which it issued. It was obstinacy and pride 
which led to the perversion of Paul’s words, and to these sentiments 
he points his opponent. In the same way we find that our Saviour 
himself, when replying, ofttimes pays less regard to the question 
put, than to the disposition from which it emanated, speaking pro- 
perly to that, as the great searcher of hearts, (Matt. viii. 20, 22; xix. 
16, where the person who addressed him, a vain man, wished by 
the epithet he employs, to flatter him, John iii. 8. ‘That the Saviour 
thus looked to the dispositions, he himself declares, John vi. 65,) or, 
in the case of objections made, that he first corrected the radical error, 
before obviating them, (Matt. xxii. 29, 31.) And certainly it is in 
fact true, that, where darkness 18 /oved better than the light, there 
can be no right perception of religious truth; see ch. i. 18, Chry- 
sostom: τῦτο devors διδασχάλου, Tas ἀκάνϑας ἀποσπᾶν καὶ τότε καταβάλ- 
λεὺν τὰ onéguara. Now, ἃ merely evasive reply is the more due, if, 
which is here the case with the objection of the Jew, not mere un- 
conscious delusion suggests doubts and difficulties. but obduracy and 
pride intentionally pervert. We must presume that the Jew knew 
full well, that he was, out of pride, perverting Paul’s words; if, then, 
he discovered that Paul saw so deeply into his heart, as to detect 
the root of the objection, the objection was in that way itself over- 
turned. Moreover, the Jew could not but aamit the cogency of the 
sayings, which Paul here brings forward to confute him, these being 
taken from the Old Testament. For the sake of the candid reader, 
however, he afterwards states in verses 22 and 23, the result of the 
investigation. Erasmus: Non indignatur quod interroget, nee deter- 
ret illum ne interrogat, sed objurgat quod sit ausus sic interrogare. 
We would thus paraphrase, ‘* And even were it so, thou haughty 
Israelite, how canst thou presume to lift thyself up thus against 
God?” ‘That it was not really as the Jew imagined, however, is 
involved in the δέ of ver. 92, Not unlike is 4 Ezr. v.33. Ezra had 
searched and inquired, “* Why does God love, among all fields only 
one vineyard, among all seas but one fountain, among all flowers but 
one lily, among all nations but Zion alone? Hereupon the angel of 
the Lord approaches him and says, ‘‘/t is a great mistake that thou 
shouldst love men better than he who made them.’ Not until after’ 
this, does he begin to reason with him.” 

Μὲν οὖν ye. ‘This always denotes the decided proposal of some 
objection, Rom. x. 18; Luke xi. 28. It answers to at enim. *Q 
dvSeane is expressive of contempt; see onch. 11. 1. Σὺ τίς ef} Chry- 
sostom: Κοινωνὸς εὖ τῆς ἀρχῆς; ἀλλὰ διχαςὴς ἐκάϑισας τῷ Θεῷ; meds yae 
τὴν ἐκείν ovyxerouv οὐδὲ εἶναί Te δύνασαι" οὐ τόδε, ἢ τόδε, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ εἶναὺ 
τι) τ γὰρ εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲν εἶ, πολὺ τὸ εἰπεῖν, Tis el, οὐδαμινέςεφον. ὃ ὋὉ 


* Art thou ἃ partner in his government? Dost thou sit a judge with God? 
For, in comparison with him, thou art not even any thing. Not this or that, 
but nothing at all. For, to say, Who art thou? is much more expressive of 
contempt than to say, Thou art nothing. 


334 CHAPTER IX. v. 20, 21. 


ἀνταποκρινόμενος is the verb used by the LXX. for 78 TWN and 73)’, 
and, like that, means “to give a contradictory or gainsaying answer,’ 
Luke xiv. 6. 

μὴ épet χτλ. The text is quoted from Is. xl. 9. (Comp. xxix. 16.) 
For, when Jewish theologians wish to turn off their adversary, they 
are wont to prefer doing so by a Bible text, whether that serve di- 
reetly or indirectly to refute or turn aside. ‘The formula used by the 
Rabbins for this purpose is "pw 799 7.293, ** according as we read 
in the text.’? Equivalent is the phrase in the discourse of Christ, 
οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε, Matt. xxi. 16,42; xii. 3. What the point of simi- 
litude is, is brought forward by Chrysostom: ’Evzav$’ οὐ τὸ αὐτεξού- 
σιον ἀναιφὼν τοῦτο λέγει, ἀλλὰ Sevxvis méxeu moos Sev πείθεσθαι τῷ Θεῷ. 
2 ++ + Eis τοῦτο yae μόνον τὸ ὑπόδειγμα ἔλαβεν; οὐκ εἰς τὴν τῆς πολιτείας 
ἐπίδειξιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὴν ὑποτεταγμένην ὑπακοὴν καὶ σιγήν. καὶ τοῦτο παν- 
ταχοὺ Se παρατηξείν, OTL τὰ ὑποδείγματα οὐ πάντα χαϑόλου 
dec λαμβάνειν, GAAG τὸ χρήσιμον αὐτῶὼν ἐχλεξαμένες εἰς 
ὅπεξ παρείληπται, τὸ λοιπὸν ἅπαν ἐᾷν. Were the immortal 
souls of men really stones, there might be some truth in what Tho- 
mas Aquinas, as Aristotelian fatalist says: Si aliquis edificare volens 
haberet multos lapides zquales, posset ratio assignari, quare ponat 
quosdam in summo, quosdam in imo; sed quare ponat hos in sum- 
mo, hos in imo, id non habet aliquam rationem nisi quia artifex 
voluit. 

V.21. This saying, likewise, is in part contained in the Old Tes- 
tament and in the Apocrypha, Jer. xviii. 6; Book of Wisd. xv. 7; 
Ecclesiasticus xxxiii. 18. ‘The same simile is to be found in Philo, 
De sacrif. Ab. et Cain, p. 148, and among the Rabbins. See Wet- 
stein. 

éégsva Means power over any thing, and is joined with the gen. 
objecti, πηλοὺ, both here and at Matt. x. 1. f 

σκεύη εἰς τιμὴν καὶ εἰς ἀτιμίαν. Τιμὴ and ἀτιμία are abstr. pro concr. 
The two words denote “a noble and a base use.”” Thus Philo De 
Vita contempl. p. 890, explains the oxevy ἀτιμότεξα, to be: ἃ meds τὰς 
ἐν σχότῳ χξείας ὑπηξετεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ Tas ἐν φωτί. ‘To the same effect, 
Jerome ad Hos. x. 8. The same distinction between σχεύη τιμώμενα 
and ἄτιμα, according to the use made of the vessel, is also to be found 
/@lian, Hist. Var. 1. XIII. c. 40. It is likewise drawn, 2 Tim. ii. 
20, where the Apostle, in the same way, figuratively styles the con- 
tumacious and ungodly minded, σκεύη εἰς ἀτιμίαν, leaving it, how- 
ever, to their option to become if they so will, σκεύη εἰς τὶμὴν, for he 
adds: ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐχχαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων; ἔσταν oxevos εἰς τιμὴν; 


* Here he does not say this, as if he would deprive us of free will, but to 
show in how far we are bound to obey God...... The only end for which 
he selected this example, was, not to lay down a rule of action, but inculcate 
submission and silence. And this is a rule which ought always to be ob- 
served, that we must not take all the parts of a simile, without exception, but 
selecting what is subservient to the purpose for which it is employed, omit 
every thing else. 


CHAPTER IX. V. 21, 22. $35 


ἡγιασμένον καὶ evyensrov τῷ δεσπότῃ. We must here take a firm hold 
of the connection. ‘The self-righteous Jew looked upon his own 
nation, according to the measures previously adopted, as the sole 
φύραμα, from which God could fashion the σχεύη τιμῆς. ‘The Apostle 
accordingly replies to him, that it lies wholly with God to choose 
the mass from which to make σκεύη εἰς τιμήν. Origen: Tibi qui in- 
solenter interrogas, hec audisse sufficiat. Qui vero opera sapientiz 
Dei in dispensationibus ejus desiderat contueri, audiat in alio loco de 
his ipsis Paulum divinorum secretorum conscium disputantem, 2'Tim. 
il. 20. Ita ergo rationem quem ibi indigne poscentibus claudit, hic 
digne desiderantibus pandit. Now, as the Calvinists, on the other 
hand, explain the similitude here used by Paul, consonantly to the 
doctrinal view which they form of the whole passage, Beza says: 
Dico Paulum elegantissima ista similitudine adhibita ad ipsius Adami 
creationem alludere, et ad eternum usque Dei propositum adscendere, 
qui neque ut creato neque ut creando debitor, antequam humanum 
genus conderet, (before the fall then, it would seem, which event he 
simultaneously decreed) jam tum et in quibusdam per misericordiam 
servandis, et in quibusdam justo judicio perdendis, gloriam suam 
illustrare, pro suo jure et mera voluntate decreverit. In how far this 
explication, judging from the whole connection, ought to be regarded 
as false, results from what we have said above. ‘I‘hat it is incorrect 
in itself, however, follows, if, as we must dc, we deny that God is 
an arbitrary being; for if he be not such, he must uniformly act in 
harmony with himself, ὁ. e. with the totality of his attributes. ‘There 
cannot therefore exist, as the Calvinist maintains, ἃ manifestation of 
God’s justice, which is not, at the same time, a manifestation of his 
love. Supposing the gratia irresistibilis, it would be a glorious mani- 
festation of God’s omnipotence, were he to effect the salvation of all. 
Seb. Castalio: Sapiens vas nullum facit ad frangendum, sed si quod 
vas vitiosum esse contingit, id frangit. 

V.22. Now that the haughty Jew, who had intentionally perverted 
the declaration of his own holy scriptures, has been scared away, 
the Apostle delivers, for the behoof of the candid reader, the result 
of his previous averments. ‘This goes to evince, that God, in his 
dealing with the ungodly, as well as with the Christian, manifests 
himself to be a God of boundless compassion and boundless wisdom. - 
The elocutio, as even Origen remarks, is incomposita, and at both 
ver. 22 and 23 something is to be supplied in general, as something 
is also at ver. 23 in particular. Among the various expositors, there 
are several, who will hear of nothing to be supplied. So Schiéttgen, 
Heumann, Nésselt. Heumann is for putting a point of interrogation 
after ver. 22 and 23, which, in fact, many editions have, taking εἰ for 
ON as interrogative, and along with the interrogative a negation, and 
translating, ‘‘ Has not God willed to,—and so on.” But were we 
even to concede all else, it would be impossible to concede that εἰ 
expresses a question with the negative. Schiéttgen supposes that the 
particle ϑέλων, stands in place of the finite verb Séaec, and that qveyxe- 


336 CHAPTER IX. V. 22. 


forms the after clause, so that ver. 22 is included within itself. The 
καὶ, in ver. 23, he connects with the entire proposition of ver. 22; 
23 then becomes the antecedent, and ver. 24 the consequent, the ots 
being taken in the sense of the demonstrative τούτους. ‘This proce- 
dure, however, is ungrammatical and altogether violent. ‘The same 
may also be said of Theodoret’s explanation, who places a period 
after εἰ δέ, and wants to conceive supplied: Ei τοῦτο ποθεῖς μαθεῖν, 
τίνος ἕνεκα, πλειόνων ἁμαφτανόντων; τοὺς μὲν κολάζει, τοὺς δὲ δὲ Exevvav 
EDECYET EL, καὶ πολλὼν τὴν ἀρετὴν μετιόντων; τοὺς μὲν περιφανεῖς ἀποφψαί- 
νει, τοὺς δὲ διὰ τούτων ὑποφαίύνευ τὰς τῶν μελλόντων ἐλπίδας: ἄκουσον τῶν 
ἑξῆς. With respect to what we ought to supply to the clause ἢ 
εἰ δέ in ver. 22, the expositors agree in the main. Augustine and 

Ccumenius suppose that σὺ τίς εἶ is to be supplied once more from 
ver. 20, Cocceius, that οὐχ ἔχεν ἐξουσίαν is to be resumed from the 
context immediately preceding. It is most correct to say, that Paul 
here employs an aposiopesis, such as is to be found in almost all 
languages after a conditional antecedent clause. Compare, after an 
antecedent clause with ἐάν, the same aposiopesis of τί ἐρεῦτε; in John 
vi. 62, while at John xxi. 22, the τί weds σὲ is added after a similar ma- 
jor clause. So Elsner Obs. Moreover, in Rabbinical dialectics, it is very 
customary to break off a demonstrative clause with the words [5310 “Ἵν 
‘‘enough for the wise,’’ according to the proverb common among 
the Rabbins, 87072 NDDN, ** to the wise by a wink.’ It is, however, 
less easy to explain how ver. 23 is to be conceived. We know not 
what xa: is connected with, and just as little upon what verb ἕνα de- 
pends. he Vulgate, and a few insignificant codices which Locke fol- 
lows, in order to get quit of the difficulty, leave the xac out, as the 
Syriac does the iva. QCicumenius, before ἀπὸ cov xowov, supplies 
another ἤνεγκεν, and, moreover, in the case of the justified, the state- 
ment of the purpose, viz. εἰς σωτηξίαν, as in the case of the condemned, 
the εἰς ἀπώλείαν. Schlichting before iva yrwecoy supplies another οὐχ 
ἐξουσίαν ἔχει, and takes ἕνα in the sense that. In that case, however, 
it would be requisite for the ellipse to precede the xa, and that can- 
not be supposed. ‘The two common views are as follows: A certain 
number of expositors co-ordinate the clause χαὺ ἕνα κτλ. to the ϑέλων 
6 Θεὸς x7a., and then subordinate both to the ἤνεγκεν, so that the sense 
would be: ““ God had a twofold purpose in his long-suffering endur- 
ance of the reprobate. On the one hand, he wished to manifest his 
power, and on the other meant to display, by the contrast of the re- 
probate, the greatness of his compassion, when he forgives the elect, 
who yet are taken from the same corrupt mass.”’ So the Calvinists, 
Calvin himself, Beza and Pet. Martyr. So likewise, however, Cas- 


* If you are curious to know, wherefore it is, that whilst there are many 
sinners, he punishes some, and by their means confers benefits on others; 
and that whilst many follow after virtue, he renders some conspicuous, and 
through them dimly discovers to others the hopes of futurity, Hear what 
follows. 


CHAPTER IX. V. 22. 337 


talio, Grotius and Taylor, who are not of that school. Another class 
of interpreters make the zai iva depend upon ϑέλων, and co-ordinate 
the ἕνα yrwedon to the ἐνδείξασθαι, 50 as to make it describe an oppo-— 
site mode of treatment on the part of God. So Wolf, Chr. Schmid 
and Stolz. Itis here presumed, that ἕνα γνωρίσῃ stands in place of 
the infin. γνωρίσαι. ‘The translation would then be as follows: “1 
God intending to show his power, endured, with long suffering, the 
vessels of wrath, and if he intended to manifest his glory on the ves- 
sels of his mercy.’’ Both modes of construction, however, are unsa- 
tisfactory. The first mentioned is so, in as far as then the reprobate 
alone would be the subject spoken of in both the verses, whereas in 
a result derived from all that has been said, one necessarily expects 
some mention likewise of the redeemed, and the more, that from 
ver. 24 onwards, it is just upon them that the Apostle expatiates. 
Besides, it is only with much violence that the xac ἕνα can be joined 
as a co-ordinate clause with the ϑέλων xrx., and as a subordinate one 
with ἤνεγκεν. On a frequent perusal, the exegetical tact leads one, 
ever more and more, to commence with the xai ἕνα, an entirely new 
sentence. With respect again to the construction mentioned as the 
second, it also is attended with difficulties. In the first place, ϑέλων 
is, in ver, 22, taken as a participle; when supplied, however, to the 
iva of ver. 23, as a verbum finit. Then, supposing this difficulty to 
be overlooked, ver. 23, on a general view, would ill suit the dispo- 
sition of ver. 22. It appears, on the contrary, that ver. 23 is so dis- 
posed, as to form a complete parallel to ver. 22. ‘This becomes 
perceptible to the exegetical tact, as was felt, although not distinetly, 
by Gicumenius. The καὶ ἵνα κτλ.» as Statement of the purpose, an- 
swers to the Séawy x72. the ἃ προητοίμασεν to the xarneresuéva, and 
the obs καὺ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς to the ἤνεγκεν. It is hence much more pro- 
bable, that we have here δΔη ἀναχόλουθον, and that the Apostle properly 
intended to write: εἰ δὲ Sénav.. .«ἥνεγκχεν oo ey καὺ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ oe ἐχά- 
λεσεν ἡμᾶς. ΓῸ suppose this is so much the more natural, that the 
Apostle shows a constant fondness for connecting clauses with the 
relative. Ina similar way Seiler appears to have construed. 

We now advance to the exposition of particulars. ‘The participle 
ϑέλων is to be resolved into χαΐπερ ϑέλων. “Stolz: And if God, 
although he had resolved to inflict punishment.” 

τὴν seyyv. Augustine, De Civ. Dei. 1. xv. c. 35: Ira Dei non per- 
turbatio animi ejus est, sed judicium quo irrogatur pena peccato. 
Comp. annot. on ὁ. i. v. 18. 

zo δυνατὸν, the neuter adjective in place of the substantive. The 
word points back to δύναμις in ver. 17. God employs his power in 
punishing the sinner, not becausé it profits Him. He stands in no 
need of our holiness: Neque enim, says Augustine, De Civ. Dei 1. 
x. 6. 5, fonti se quisquam dixerit profuisse si biberit, aut luci si ad- 
spexerit. Just as his attribute of holiness, however, in regard to 
himself, requires of himself perfect harmony with himself, so is the 
same holiness conceived in regard to the creatures, in which case it 

43 


338 CHAPTER IX. V. 22, 


obtains the name righteousness, or harmony of the creatures with 
him, as the ultimate rule of all existence; this constituting also the 
supreme felicity of the creatures, which only then really exist, 
when they exist in Him, and according to Him. 

paxeoduuca. See the annot. on chap. ii. 4. Comp. 2 Maec. vi. 14. 
As the Calvinist does not suppose that God waits upon the wicked 
to see if he will improve, or that it is for repentance, he gives him 
opportunity, the μαχεοθυμία loses entirely its biblical import, accord- 
ing to which it signifies God’s waiting for repentance, (Rom. ii. 4, 
5. 2 Pet. iii.9.) In the most favourable view, it becomes an act of 
justice; in the least, an act of cunning, which refuses to help the 
wanderer. Philo speaks to the contrary, Quod Deus immutabilis, 
Ρ. 304: Πεεσβύτεξος yae δίκης ὁ ἔλεος nae’ αὐτῷ. Compare, moreover, 
the fine passage from Jarchi on Gen. i. ν. 5. “Αἱ the beginning, 
God wished to create the world solely by the rule of justice (35 
ni); he saw, however, that then it would not be able to subsist, 
and he added the rule of love (Ὁ ΠῚ AND).’’ Further, Philo, De 
Provid. in Euseb. Prep. Ev. 1. VIII. ο. 14. 

σκεύη ὀφγῆς. ‘Chis expression the Apostle selects solely in conse- 
quence of the preceding figure. He could do so the more readily, 
inasmuch as the word 2 was common in Hebrew, ina metaphorical 
sense. So Pirke Avoth, § 3, the law is called ΠΣ 2. Is. xiii. 6, 
the Persians are styled Opi 43. More particularly, the Jews called 
women 092, Sometimes, also, profane authors apply σκεῦος in the 
metaphoric sense to men. Comp. Acts ix. 15, σχεῦος ἐχλογῆς. In 
σκεύη oeyns, however, the genitive is not, as in oxevos Exaroyys, to be 
taken actively, as if God had created them in his wrath, which indeed, 
if we conceive wrath as hatred and punishment of evil, would be 
senseless, seeing that God only creates for the purpose of communi- 
cating himself; but the genitive is to be taken passively, ‘ vessels 
worthy of punishment.” 

Κατηξτισμένα. In the LXX., xaraerilew, equally with ἑτοιμάζειν, 
corresponds with }'25. Several Arminians take the participle pass- 
ive, as pure middle, the way in which it is also usually taken by Lu- 
therans and Arminians, at Acts xiii. 48, on which passage Limborch, 
with much learning, seeks to establish the middle sense. Now, 
although it certainly admits of being so taken, we too easily perceive, 
from this explanation, that it has emanated from docirinal views. 
Hence, Lutherans and Calvinists almost all agree in here acknow- 
ledging a participle passive; the only difference between them being, 
that the latter look upon God as the agent in the matter, while the 
former, following the lead of 'Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact 
and (Xcumenius, will have it to be undefined, but that man is to be 
supposed. Christian Schmid differs from the rest of the Lutheran 
expositors. He takes χατηξτισμένα, in like manner, as passive parti- 
ciple, and of like significance with the corresponding phrase, ἃ πξοη- 
Φοίμασεν᾽ just as at 2'Tim. ill. 17, the ἐξηξφτισμένος is equivalent to the 
ἡτουμασμένος, 2 Tim. 11, 21; accordingly, God is to be looked upon as 


CHAPTER IX. V. 22. 339 


the person operating, only not φελικῶς» but, as in the case of Pha- 
raoh, ἐχβατικῶς. ‘This exposition has much in its favour, to wit, in 
as far, as in the ὅσου ἦσαν τεταγμένοι Of Acts ΧΙ]. 48, it seems proba- 
ble, that the conversion spoken of is in like manner, merely accord- 
ing to the popular usus loquendi, traced wholly back to God, as the 
final cause, whereas properly he is but ὑλιχὼς and διαταχτικῶς the 
author, and in as far also as the Rabbinical usus loquendi coincides 
with it. See Wetstein on Acts xiii. 47. So R. Bechai: “ ‘The 
Heathen are prepared (0°3319) for hell, but Israel for life.’’ And, 
Bechoroth, f. 8. 2, it is said, ‘*R. Joseph taught, They are the Per- 
sians who are prepared (0°32) for Gehennah.”’ Similar is the pass- 
age of Jude 4, οὗ mpoysyeaumévor sis τοῦτο τὸ xevmo- In the participle, 
j212, the Jew conceived to himself God as the Author, although not 
éveeyntixas. Although, however, much may be said in favour of 
this exposition, it seems preferable with Grotius and Limborch, to 
suppose at the present passage, that the participle stands in the place 
of the adjective verb, in which way, Luke vi. 40, xarjercopévos is to 
be explained; and 2 Tim. ii. 21, ἡτοιμασμένον appears united in the 
same sense with oxevos. For as the Hebrew wants, in his language, 
the adjective verb, he puts participles in the place of them. So is 
the participle Niphal of 713 also used for the adject. verb. 712) ““ firm, 
ready.” ‘The Rabbinical participle, Pual 3012, has in like manner 
the signification of the adject. verb, ** ready, suited.”’ Nay, the par- 
ticiple Pual }217, which properly signifies ‘* prepared,”’ serves in the 
Rabbinical just like TAy in Hebrew, that equally signifies “‘ prepared,” 
for a direct periphrasis of the future. In the Hellenistic, this Hebraism 
is to be found again, for instance, John xix. 38, xexevuuévos, in place 
of xevaios, 2' Tim. ii. 21. So has the Vulgate also here, apta, although 
some codices read aptata. ‘The predestinarian construction of the 
whole saying is given in the most unobjectionable form by Augus- 
tine, Ep. 186, ad Paulinum § 24: Pertulit vasa ire in interitum ap- 
tata, non quod illi essent necessaria ..... sed ne se (vasa misericor- 
diz) in bonis operibus tanquam de propriis extollerent viribus, sed 
humiliter intelligerent, nisi illis Dei gratia, non debita sed gratuita, 
subveniret, id fuisse reddendum meritis suis, quod aliis in eadem 
massa reditum cernerent. ‘The subject of redemption, however, will 
believe this, even without the arbitrary and eternal damnation of ἡ" 
many of his fellow men. ‘The usual (we say so, inasmuch as ours 
deviates a little), anti-predestinarian view is given with greatest pre- 
cision by Clarius: Vas erat Pharaoh quod sese apparaverat ad inte- 
ritum, dignus erat qui continuo plecteretur, verum ingentem erga eum 
tolerentiam Deus exercuit, atque interea, ut sub Dei regno ne mala 
quidem sine aliquo éssent usu, ita sapienter omnia moderatus est ut 
ejus correctio multis documento fuerit ac saluti. Ita uno negotio hac 
omnia confecit, Ostendit iram suam, notam fecit potentiam, leni- 
tatem ingentem ferendo pre se tulit, indicavit quanti faceret vasa 
misericordiz. 


340 CHAPTER IX. V. 23, 24. 


V.23. Upon the καὶ iva, see ver. 22. [ῃ σχεύη ἐλέους» the ἐλέους is 
gen. passivi, ‘upon which the divine mercy diffuses itself.”’ 

πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης. Rom. ii. 4. Eph. i. 7, 18; ii. 7. Col. i. 27. 
The δόξα is the blessedness, which, by means of the love of God, is 
imparted to the Christian. Hence, Theophylact explains incorrectly 
when he says: ἡ τελεία δόξα Θεοῦ τὸ ἔλεευν. The ἃ πεοητοίμασεν cor- 
responds with the χατηξτισμένα. The πεὸ might stand destitute of 
significance, in proof of which Lésner quotes the passage from Philo: 
De Opif. p. 17: Ὃ Θεὸς τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πάντα προητουμάσατο. -- ++ - εἰς 
ἔρωτα καὶ πόθον αὗτου. But even in that passage of Philo, the πεὸ 
is not entirely devoid of meaning. In the present case, that is so 
much the less to be conceived, that Christ himself (Mat. xxv. 34), 
and the Apostles (see observations on Rom. viii. 28, 29), state it as 
a particular distinction of the redeemed, that from eternity their par- 
don, and consequently also their exaltation to glory, was determined 
before the eyes of God. Precisely the same way as here, is πξοεθοι- 
patew used, Wisdom ix. 8: εἶπας» οὐἰκοδομῆσαυ ναὸν ἐν deer ἁγίῳ σου, καὶ 
ἐν πόλει χατασχηνώσεώς σου ϑδυσιαστήξιον; μίμημα σκηνῆς ἁγίας ἣν πεοητοί- 
μασας an’ ἀρχῆς. ‘The purpose of God, in so far as it brings along 
with it the fulfilment, is represented as an ideal action on God’s 
part. Accordingly, supplying what needs to be supplied, we translate 
the present and foregoing verses in their connection thus: ‘ But if 
God had the intention to manifest his holiness and his omnipotence 
upon those who only merited punishment from his divine holiness, and 
were wholly fitted for being driven into eternal perdition, but did, 
nevertheless, endure such men, waiting with patience for their re- 
pentance, If, on the other hand, he had the intention to make 
known the riches of his glory to those who were to be the partakers 
of his compassion, and to whom he had already, before the founda- 
tion of the world, assigned eternal glory, and now called them, Hea- 
thens as well as Jews, into his kingdom, without making a distinction 
between the nations, what could well be said in opposition?”’ 

V.24. Ods is, without reference to the sense, construed with oxevn, 
that word standing metaphorically for men. After zxcdaecev, Erasmus, 
Luther, Beza and others place a comma, and take ἡμᾶς as apposition. 
We do better, however, to connect ἡμᾶς directly as object with ἐχά- 
λεσεν» and to regard the relative as predicate, “‘as which persons he 
hath also called us.’? The od μόνον ἐξ ᾿Ιουδαίων then forms a new 
addition, which it frequently does: ** And indeed not only.”” ‘Thus 
does the Apostle with these words, again take his stand upon the 
ground from which he had departed at the commencement of the 
chapter, ver. 7, viz. that it was not merely the Jews, as such, who 
were to come into the kingdom of the Messias, but that God has 
the right to appoint those conditions of mercy, under which, only 
certain Jews, and the Heathen no less than they, should obtain ad- 
mission. And clearly do we see, from this inference, that it is not 
the vocation of individuals into the kingdom of grace which is treated 


CHAPTER Ix. V. 24,25, 26. 341 


of, but that of entire national masses, and so not of an absolute, but 
only of such a conditional decree on God’s part, as depends upon 
faith, consequently upon the bias of the will. 


1 50 ΙΓ. 


EVEN THE OLD TESTAMENT PREDICTS, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT ONLY 
A FEW, FROM AMONG THE JEWS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT 
THE HEATHEN TOO SHALL BE SAVED. v. 25—33. 


V. 25. The passage which St. Paul quotes, is from Hos. il. 23, 
with which we have to compare Hos. i. 6—10. The text is not 
correctly cited. It there runs TAN DY ΡΝ) “MAND NON NTA 
‘ony. The LXX. have ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐχ ἠγαπημένην. But the — 
Codex Alex. and likewise the Aldine have ἐλεήσω τὴν οὐκ ἐλεημένην. 
This translation is also the one here expressed by the Syriac, and by 
the Apostle Peter, 1 Peter ii. 10. According to the Hebrew usus lo- 
quendi, both translations are good, inasmuch as 0M signifies fo love 
as well as fo pity, which last, however, more commonly belongs to the 
Piel. The feminine 79M and ἠγαπημένη arises from the circumstance, 
that the prophet required to represent by his daughter, the kingdom 
of Israel, to which the words apply. In fact, the declaration of the 
Lord in the prophet, refers properly to the manifestation of mercy, 
not to Gentiles but to the Jews. Inasmuch, however, as Israel had 
fallen to a par with the idolatrous heathen, the Apostle applies the 
sense of it also to the latter, in compliance with the Rabbinical mode 
of interpreting texts, by which one and the same may be referred to 
several things and persons, provided the idea is applicable to them. 
See Appendix to Surenhusius, Βυβλ. καταλλ. Thesis xii. p.51. The 
Apostle Peter, at the passage cited, applies in the same manner the 
words of Hosea to the heathen. 

V.26. The saying here quoted is from Hosea i. 10, faithfully 
given according to the Hebrew and the LXX. Equally with the 
former one, it refers, in the Hebrew text, to the ten tribes, foretelling 
the blessedness of which they were to be partakers when, after their 
dispersion, they should repent, enter the kingdom of the Messias, and 
united with Juda, should enjoy its glory. The xaé most likely be- 
longs to the text quoted. As the Rabbins are accustomed to do in 
their citations, Paul conjoins two similar texts immediately with each 
other; others make a colon after the xai, as if it were meant to con- 
nect two different clauses. κχαλεῦσθαι is frequently equivalent to fo 
be, according to the Hebrew 87), Is. iv. 3; ix. 6; lvi. 7. Matt. v. 
9. They shali then, as true Theocrats, be υἱοὺ τοῦ Θεοῦ ζῶντος. The 


342 CHAPTER IX. V. 27, 28. 


ἐν τῷ τόπῳ is not to be urged. It is only added, in order to give 
greater effect to the change in the divine intention. 

V. 27. By the previous saying, the Apostle had shown, that the 
Heathen should be admitted into the Divine kingdom. He now 
shows that Jews should also be admitted, but only in an incon- 
siderable number. A time of sifting, according to the prophets, is to 
precede the era of the Messias (compare what was observed on chap. 
ii. 5), which a few and but a few purified members of the theocracy 
having survived, (ΠΝ) they shall form the new kingdom of God. 
A small remnant only of the entire number shall then be saved, and 
only this remnant, **a poor and afflicted people,” (Zeph. iii. 12,) 
enters into the kingdom of the Messias. ‘They are then, however, 
refined as silver is refined, and tried as gold is tried, Zech. xiii. 9. 
These are they who, when all Israel is sifted, like the grains of corn, 
do not fall upon the earth, Amos ix. 9. ‘They form that holy seed,” 
which remains over from the tree that has cast its leaves, Is. vi. 13. 
Yea, every one of them is called holy, and written in the book of 
life, Is. iv. 3. Even for the heathen who at that great time of sifting, 
’ shall flee to Zion, there shall be found deliverance there, Joel ii. 32. 
Upon the ground of these predictions, R. Sinai in Perek. Melech., 
declares: ‘* That to Canaan, of 600,000 people there came but two, 
this shall happen in the days of the Messiah.”’ Now to the sayings 
of this kind belongs also the prophetical passage, applied by the 
Apostle, Is. x. 22. He was by it able to evince, as it was his pur- 
pose to do, that even the prophets did not announce to the nation, as 
such, an entrance into the Messias’ kingdom, but only to a chosen 
number. 

Ἡσαΐας χράζει bate τοῦ Ἰσξαήλ. ‘The word xeafew, among the 
Rabbins, is often used emphatically in citations. So especially in 
the formula wapn m7 Ayo Any. Also my #7237. Similarly Aris- 
tides, Orat. in Ap. p. 124: ἡ πόλις αὐτὴ συνομολογεὶ xai xéxeays. The 
ὑπὲρ like περὶ “ἴῃ regard to.” ‘The translation agrees perfectly with 
the Hebr. and the LXX., excepting only, that the 13 which we find in 
the Hebrew, and which the LXX. express correctly by αὐτῶν, is 
wanting. The Codex Alexr. has this αὐτῶν just as little. 

V.28. The Hebrew of this citation, Is. x. 22 and 23, runs thus: mba 
3 Apr Aow pn yr7 pany 2 apa ΠΩ» Msay Ὁ ΥΝ ΤΙΝ ΠΣ. The 
correct explanation of which words is: ‘* The extermination is deter- 
mined, it accordingly streams forth bringing righteousness, (so has 
Gesenius rightly translated in this passage,) for the Lord God of 
hosts executeth the appointed destruction in all the land.””. We have 
now to answer the question, how the Codex Alexr. came to translate 
as it has done. The Hebrew }153 was probably taken by the LXX. 
in the sense decree, appointment, In this signification the substan- 
tive 152 stands, 1 Sam. xx. 33, and the verb, 1 Sam. xx. 7,9. Es- 
ther vil. 7. ‘The λόγος in the Greek ought, accordingly, in the same 
way to signify decree. ‘The Syriac translation is hence less correct, 
as is that of the Vulgate, verbum, of Erasmus, sermo, and of Beza 


CHAPTER IX. v. 28, 29. 343 


and many others, res. To the συντελὼν and the σνυντέμνων ἐστὶ or 2o- 
ταν is to be supplied; the participles stand for the verbum finit. the 
subject is 6 Kvews. The Syriac renders with the verbum finit. The 
LXX. sometimes change the actives of the Hebrew into passives, 
Gen. xv. 6, and sometimes likewise, as in this instance, passives, 
such as ὙΠ, into actives. Thus συντέμνων is here the translation of 
yon. In profane authors συντέμνειν has the signification accelerate, 
so also has the Hebrew yn. ‘This is here most suitable, and cer- 
tified by the usus loquendi. Less appropriate, and not demonstrated 
by the usus loquendi, is the signification which Hesychius gives to 
the συντέμνειν, explaining it by συντελεῖν, to accomplish. Many others 
take it in the sense to conclude. ‘This is without example among 
profane authors, and in the LXX., it is the less frequent, although 
to be found in Dan. ix. 24, 26. It would also suit with the following 
λόγος συντετμημένος, but does not suit here. How then came the 
translators to interpolate ovyrendy? Certainly this cannot be an elu- 
cidation of συντέμνων. Rather does it seem intended to exhaust the 
idea of 1752, which is not fully expressed by λόγος. That the LXX., 
in the book of Isaiah, endeavour, by small interpolations, to give their 
version more perspicuity, is observed by Gesenius, zu Is. Th. I. 5. 
58. But then the \Ow, appears to be untranslated. Venema main- 
tains the violent hypothesis, that the LXX. had read vow. Were 
not 77M in every other passage, even in its derivatives, translated 
with συντέμνευν, it would be by no means improbable that \uw, which 
elsewhere has the signification fo rush on, (Jer. viii. 6,) had been 
here taken by the translator transitively, and rendered by ovyréuvew, 
in the sense, fo hasten. If this conjecture, however, is not adopted, 
it must be said that the translator believed the sense of "nw was 
already sufliciently expressed by συντέμνων and συντελῶν. Arxarootyy 
is here doubtless penal justice, or like prs, the truth. The Codex 
Alexr. the Coptic, Syriac and Arabic versions, and several fathers 
leave ἐν δυκαιοσύνῃ----συντετμημένων out. ‘The Aithiopic and 'Theodo- 
ret omit from συντελῶν to ὅτι λόγον. Both omissions are occasioned 
by difficulties in the interpretation. 

Λόγον συντετμημένον. Here συντέμνειν might be suitably translated 
by to resolve. We prefer, however, the meaning to expedite. The 
whole verse contains the description of the time of sifting, which is 
to precede the Messias’ kingdom, See, upon this citation, the able 
treatise of Von Célln, Keil and Tzschirner Anal. Th. III. 5. 2. 

V. 29. Another prophetical passage relating to the Israelites, who 
survive the penal judgments, and obtain salvation. Isaiah’s words, 
however, do not stand in any determinate bearing upon the period of 
the Messias. The text is faithfully quoted after the Hebrew and 
LXX. The πρεοείρηκεν has here not the meaning, to prophecy, but 
to. say above, at some previous passage, 2 Cor. vii. 3; Heb. x. 15; in 
the language of the Rabbins 79 ον 9. Σαβαὼθ is the name which 
God usually bears in the‘authentic part of Isaiah. It may well be 
that this name, 777 ΠΊΝΩΝ, which means “God of Hosts,’’ was 


344 CHAPTER Ix. V. 29, 30, 31, 32. 


originally, as Von Célln supposes, applied to God as the warrior 
(133) of Israel, who went forth before their armies in the ark of the 
covenant, and that only at an after period was it applied to the ce- 
lestial hosts of stars. Σπέρμα stands for the Hebrew, 17w, not be- 
cause, as Rosenmiiller, on Is. i. 9, maintains, 17w primarily signified 
left seed, for it comes from an Arabic root, which means * to fly,” 
but because only the person who fled remamed as a seed for propa- 
gation; Job xx. 21, Ww stands expressly for the remnant, and the 
LXX. translate ὑπόλειμμα. Compare Is. vi. 13. ὋὉμοιοῦσθαι joined 
by the LXX. with ὡς instead of with the dative (Hos. iv. 6; Ez. 
Xxxii. 2), because in Hebrew ΠῚ is so with 3. 

V. 30. Result respecting which Melancthon justly says: Hie ex- 
presse ponit causam reprobationis, quia scilicet nolint eredere Evan- 
gelio. Ideo supra dixi, similitudinem de luto non ita accipiendam 
esse, quasi non sit in ipsa voluntate hominis causa reprobationis. 

ἔθνη τὼ μὴ διώκοντα δικαυοσύνην. ‘The character of the Gentile, 
generally considered, is, that he does not inquire whether or not there 
be a God, and He a holy being; the character of the Jew, that he is 
aware of it, and trembles, but again takes courage from himself; the 
character of the Christian, that he too knows it, trembles, but consents 
to receive comfort. ‘The Heathen is without zeal; the Jew has a 
zeal, but not according to knowledge, Rom. x. 2; Gal. iv. 17. 
Chrysostom: xai γὰξ δύο ἐστὶ τὰ ζητούμενα» Ore καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐπέτυχεν Kad 
μὴ διώκοντα ἐπέτυχε, τοῦτ᾽ ote μὴ σπουδάσαντα. καὶ πάλιν end τῶν 
᾿ἸΙουδαίών ὁμοίως τὰ δύο ἀποξα" ὅτι καὶ Ἰσξαὴν ovx ἐπέτυχεν καὶ σπουδάζων 
οὐκ ἐπέτυχε. 5 Upon δικαυνοσύνη compare Rom. 1. 17; ill. 21, Διώχω 
is frequently used by profane authors in the place of ζητεῖν. In the 
same way, also, ΤΊ occurs in the Hebrew for wp2, and so too in 
Rabbinical, Pirke Avoth, c. 4, § 2, 77 MN ΤῚΝ. 

V. 31. Νόμος, as at vii. 23; viii. 2, has the general signification of 
rule, law. It is falsely supposed by Bengel and Bolten, that νόμος 
δικαιοσύνης Stands per hypallagen for δικαιοσύνη νόμου. 

φθάνειν és τι. Hesychius: καταλαμβάνειν. It means precisely to 
altain. Soin the LXX. and among profane authors. See in the 
N. T. Phil. iii. 16. 

V. 32. Chrysostom: “αὐτὴ ἧ σαφεστάτη τοῦ χωρίου παντὸς λύσις. 
Here we must look back to ver. 16. From that it becomes clear, of 
what description the running of Israel was, which did no good. 

ὡς ἐξ teyov. The ὡς answers to the Hebrew caph veritatis (Gese- 
nius, Lehrg. 5. 846, Gesenius, zu Is. i. 7,) 2. 6. it involves a com- 
parison with all objects of the same species. The use of it is par- 
ticularly manifest at John i. 14, where Chrysostom, so early as in 


* Two things are inquired about, viz. the Gentiles obtaining, and obtaining 
although they did not seek, 7. 6. without taking pains; and again, in respect 
of the Jews, there are equally two difficulties; viz. that Israel did not attain, 
and that they did not attain, although they strove to do so. : 

{ This is the clearest solution of the whole passage. 


CHAPTER IX. V. 32, 33. 345 


his day, remarks it, likewise at John vii. 10; Phil. ii. 12; Philem. 
14. In Greek, also, the ὡς is soused with adverbs, particularly with 
ἀληθὼς; 6. g. Plato, Apol. T. I. Bip. p. 94: εὑρήσει τοὺς ὡς ἀληθὼς δικασ- 
vas, Which must be resolved into οὕτω δικαστὰς ὄντας, ὡς ἀληθὼς ὀνομά- 
Coe ἂν τις. 

V. 33. The Apostle means to show, that it was announced in the 
Old Testament itself that Israel would reject the Messias. Were he 
able to show that, it would appear less surprising, if, now-a-days, 
agreeably to his statement, the major part of the Jews were excluded 
from the kingdom of the Messias. ‘The passage to which he appeals 
is Is. xxviii. 16. As it there stands, it does not suit his purpose; 
and accordingly he inserts a few words from another similar passage, 
Is. viii. 14. In the same way the Rabbins also proceed, introducing 
into their Scripture citations, words taken from texts of a kindred 
signification. Examples are given by Surenh. Βιβλ. xazana. de modis 
alleg. T. V. p. 43. The text Is. xxviii. 16, runs as follows: [38 13} 
ΤᾺΣ INN wi kD PeXnA ἼΟῚ Ow Np NID {Π2.. “Lo, I have 
laid in Zion a foundation-stone, a tried stone, a corner-stone, precious 
and surely founded, He that trusts it need not fly.” Isaiah viii. 14, 
reads thus: wna "710 wa ὍΣ) ἢ) JaNd) wIpr mM “ΗΒ, 
(the subject is 717, who is likewise the speaker) will be for a sanc- 
tuary, but also for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to both 
the houses of Israel.” The Apostle accordingly would seem to 
have inserted the predicates which the stone has in Isaiah viii. into 
the text from Isaiah xxviii, and omitted what are there to be found. 
Let us then weigh the prophetical sense of Is. xxviii. The words 
are uttered by God through his prophet against an ungodly-minded 
popular faction, who were desirous of a league with Egypt against 
Assyria. In opposition to this, the Divine Being replies, that for all 
his true subjects, he had laid in the theocracy, a foundation-stone that 
was more firmly set than all human plans, and that is the theocratical 
king, Messias. It is objected that the passage cannot refer to the 
Messias, inasmuch as 10) is the preterite, and consequently the stone 
is described as already laid and existing, and so that it is the young 
King Hezekiah who is meant, the hopes of all the members of the 
theocracy being founded upon him. Moreover, that to these persons 
in these days, the Messias who appeared so long after, could impart 
no consolation under their fears of Assyria. With respect to the first 
objection, it may be answered, that the pret. is a pret. proph., the 
thing being in God’s counsel already present. So even Jarchi: 725 
57 ΠῚ 7123: “Long ago has the decree been settled by me.” 
Still less can the second be urged, it being easy to conceive, that the 
prophets, once penetrated with the thought of a glory to which their 
commonwealth should attain in the Messias’ days, might well com- 
fort themselves under whatsoever affliction, with the outlook into the 
future, which they certainly imagined near at hand. ‘The Chaldaic 
translates at the passage quoted: *pn qo qo wea 13ND NIN NA ID: 
“ Behold, [ establish in Zion, a king, a strong and mighty king.” 

44 


846 CHAPTER Ix. v 33. 


The text is, however, corrupted. In Martini’s Pugio fidei, where it 
is cited, we find in both editions of the work, mwnn after the first 
752. Gesenius observes in his Com. zum. Is. that this is spurious, 
as otherwise it would be ἈΠ 2. Doubtless. But might not a He- 
brew gloss have found its way into the Chaldaic text, and existed 
there in Martini’s day. This might be still more corrupted by the 
Jews from controversial motives, omitting mwnn. Even the Baby- 
lonie Talmud, Tract. Sanhedrin, fol. 38, 1, and the book Sohar in- 
terpret this passage of the Messias, see Schittgen Hore Talm. J. ii. 
p- 170, 290, 607. Jarchi too does the same. It is likewise referred, 
in the New Testament, to the Messias, 1 Pet. ii.'7. We have, 
moreover, to compare with this prediction, Ps. cxviil. 22. See the 
expositions, many of them singular, by the Jewish theologians in 
Schittgen, Hore Talm. T. ii. p. 11, 88, 106, 107,213. Jarchi and 
Kimehi also testify that it was explained of the Messias. In the 
New Testament, Christ applies it to himself, Matt. xxi. 42,44. Luke 
xx. 17. (On these passages, Augustine, Sermo 40, De Verbis Do- 
mini, says: “ Christ in the state μὰ humiliation is the little stone at 
the feet, on which the daring runner stumbles. Christ in the state 
of exaltation is the mighty rock which, falling from on high, dashes 
the rebellious to pieces.’’) Peter also applies it to Christ, Acts iv. 
11. 1 Pet. 11. 7. Let us now turn to the other passage, Is. viii. 14. 
The words are delivered by the prophet in the name of Jehovah, to 
such of the Theocrats in the kingdom of Juda, as stood in danger of 
being seduced into distrust of the divine aid against their enemies, 
Israel and Syria. In opposition to such fears, God here offers him- 
self to all who yield him the honour, for a secure sanetuary; but, on 
the other hand, to such as assume a position of hostility against him, 
for a stone of offence and fall. ‘This passage of the prophet also was 
expounded, even by the Jews, as treating of the Messias. See the 
Gemarah zu Sanhedr. c. 4. That, at the time of our Saviour, the 
pious Jews universally applied it in the same way, is clear from Luke 
11. 34, where Simeon says: οὗτος χεῦταυ εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀνάστασιν mor- 
nav ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισφαὴλ: καὶ εἰς σήμεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον. ‘The rejection of the 
Messias by the Israelites, agreeably to the typical exposition, is in- 
volved in many psalms, as it is in Zech. xi. 12, and also Is, liii. 1. 
Several Jewish theologians, particularly the author of the Midrasch, 
taught it in express terms. ‘Thus in Bereschith Rabba, (a mystical 
commentary upon Genesis, by R. Bar-Nachmani, about 300 years 
after Christ,) we read: ἼΝΣ MYEN PNY WwW AVY PII Ws 11. 
‘«« They sing no Psalm, until the Messias is decries: as is written, 
Ps) lxxxix. 51." 

Λίθος προσκόμματος. In Hebrew, the stone upon which the 
runner strikes and falls, is an image for failure in one’s aim, and then 
generally for misfortune. Usually 5wa29 is the word which the 
LXX.—except in translating Is. vili., where they have xraiua,— 
render by σκάνδαλον, which Paul afterwards, deviating from the LXX., 
puts into the citation itself. Chrysostom: τὸ δὲ πξοσχόπτευν tx τοῦ 


CHAPTER IX. V. 33. 347 


μὴ προςέχειν γίνεται, ἐκ τοῦ meds ἕτερα χεχηνέναϊ. ἐπεὶ οὖν χαὲ οὗϑοι τῷ 
ψόμῳ πιδοσείχον, προσέχοψων τῷ λίθῳ. ἢ 

οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. In Hebrew there stands wm, which signifies, 
to be afraid. Accordingly, Capellus and Grotius suppose that the 
LXX. read wr. Pococke showed that the corresponding Arabic 
word has in the vii. conj. the meaning fo blush, and supposed that 
the Hebrew win, besides its now customary signification, trepidare, 
had that meaning also. Modern expositors embrace the same opi- 
nion, and among the rest, Gesenius. ‘The meaning given to the 
Arabie word, however, is unusual. We do better to suppose, that 
to the LXX., the sense frepidare implied as much as pessum ire, 
and hence that χαταυσχύνεσθαι stands here, in what, agreeably to their 
use of wan, is to them a very familiar meaning, to be ashamed, (be- 
cause one quakes.) ‘The import of the verse, as Paul understands 
it, is accordingly as follows: As Christ is the rock, through which ° 
alone the man who is alive to his need of salvation, can obtain firm 
footing; so is he likewise, however, the rocky point upon which the 
proud and self-righteous dash themselves, and break their hard heads. 
Calvin: Si quid nobis arrogamus justitie, cum Christi virtute quo- 
dammodo, luctamur; siquidem ejus officium est, non minus omnem 
carnis superbiam conterere, quam laborantes sublevare. 


* Offending arises from not attending, and from panting after other things; 
because they. gave their minds to the law, they struck against the stone. 


CHAPTER TENTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


The Apostle once more protests his distress at the unbelief and consequent 
rejection of the covenant people. He shows that it depends upon them- 
selves whether they shall obtain grace. All God requires is faith. This 
kind of justification, moreover, is so much easier than that by works. Neither 
has God denied the Israelites the knowledge of the doctrine of salvation. It 
has been abundantly preached to them. 


DIVISION. 


1. The ground of Israel’s rejection is unbelief, and that alone. Description of 
justification by faith. V.1—13. 
2. Israel has not wanted preachers of this doctrine of salvation. V.14—21. 


PAE Tike 


THE GROUND OF ISRAEL’S REJECTION IS UNBELIEF, AND THAT ALONE. 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH IS DESCRIBED. v. 1—13. 


V.1. Rather with the warmth of enthusiasm, than in a calm di- 
dactic tone, had the Apostle, in the former chapter, stated the ground 
of Israel’s exclusion from the new kingdom of God. In general, 
indeed, he had there been more occupied with assigning to God the 
right of excluding whom hechooses from his favours, than with speci- 
fying precisely the ground of Israel’s exclusion. Accordingly, more 
quietly, and with a sort of melancholy repose, which however, in 
the progress of the lesson, soon rises into enthusiasm, he begins at 
last to explain the cause of Israel’s exclusion. Chrysostom: Μέλλει 
πάλιν αὐτῶν καθάπτεσθαυ σφοδρότερον, ἢ πεότεξον" διὸ πάλιν ἀναιξεὶ πάσης 
ἀπεχθείας ὑπόνοιαν; καὶ πολλῇ κέχξηταν τῇ πέεοσδιορθώσει" μὴ yae πξοσέ- 
χετε τοῖς λόγοις, φησὶ, μηδὲ ταῖς χατηγοξίαις, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐχ ἀπὸ διανοίας 
ἐχθρᾶς ταῦτα φθέγγομαι. Οὐ γὰρ ἐστὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ σωθῆναί τε αὐτοὺς ἐπυ- 
θυμεῖν, καὺ μὴ μόνον ἐπιθυμεῖν ἀλλὰ χαν εὔχεσθαι, καὶ πάλιν μυσεῦν καὶ 
ἀποστρέφεσθαι. καὶ yae εὐδοχίαν ἐνταῦθα τὴν σφοδρὰν ἐπιθυμίαν φησι. καὶ 
bea χαὶ τὴν δέησιν πῶς ποιεῖται ἀπὸ διανοίας. οὐ yae ὥστε ἀπαλλαγῆναν 
χολάσεως μόνον», ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε χαὶ σωθῆναι αὐτοὺς: πολλὴν καὶ τὴν σπουδὴν 


CHAPTER X. Vv. 1, 2. . 349 


ποιεῖται, καὶ τὴν εὐχήν. καὶ οὐχ ἐντεῦθεν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ χαὶ tx τῶν ἑξῆς 
δείχνυσι τὴν εὔνοιαν, ἣν Eyer Weds αὐτοὺς. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἐγχωξούντων: ὡς 
οἷός τε ἦν, βιάζεται καὶ φυλονευκεῖν ζητῶν oxaw γοῦν τινα ἀπολογίας αὐτοὺς 
εὑξφεῖν. καὶ οὐχ ἰσχύει. ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων νυκώμενος φύσεως. ἢ 

᾿Αδελφοὺ, ἡ μὲν εὐδοχία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας. ‘The ἀδελφοὶ forms a kindly 
introduction, as atc. vii. 1. Ἑὐδοχία answers to the Hebrew j1¥9, and 
means here wish. So Ecclesiasticus xvill. 31, εὐδοκία ἐπιθυμίας. 
As must take place in all true Christians, the wish, in the case of 
Paul takes the form of a prayer, and hence there immediately follows 
here δέησις. 

εἰς σωτηξίαν.. The εἰς may stand in the sense of as touching, with 
respect to, but it is better to take it as designation of the use or pur- 
pose, and so equivalent to iva σωθῶσυ. 

V.2. The Apostle declares, that notwithstanding their unbelief, 
he cannot but, in a certain respect, love the Jews more than the un- 
believing heathens, and consequently he cherishes a peculiar wish for 
their salvation. It could not be questioned, that the Jews, even 
during their disbelief of the Gospel, were anxiously concerned for 
their salvation. But the heathen were notsoatall. Inthe same way 
would a real Christian feel deeper sympathy with a Catholic flock, 
which, under the burden of the Law, deals much with penances and 
fastings, than with a Protestant one given over to levity and flesh- 
pleasing. The burning zeal of the Jews for their Law and their 
acceptance with God, is described by Philo (Legat. at Caium, p. 
1008,) in the following words: ("Eév0s) εἰωθὸς ἑκουσίους ἀναδέχεσθαν θα- 
γάτους Gonee ἀθανασίαν, daze Tov μηδὲν τῶν πατρίων περιϊδεῖν ἀναιφούμε- 
vor, εἰ κοαὺ βεαχύτατον εἴη. ibid. p. 1022: ἅπαντες yae ἀνθρωποι φυλαχ- 
τικοὺ τῶν (Otay ἐδὼν εἰσίν. διαφεξόντως δὲ τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθνος. τοῖς 
yae nin καθαιφοῦσιν ἢ χλευάζουσιν ὡς πολεμιωτάτοις ἀπέχθονταί, καὶ πε- 
φερίκασυ μὲν ἕχαστον τῶν διηγοξευομένων οὕτως, ὡς ἅπασαν τὴν nae ἀνθρώ- 
Mois, εὖτε εὐτυχίαν Eire εὐδαιμονίαν χρὴ καλεῖν, μηδέποτ᾽ ἂν dnie παξαβά- 
σεὼς χαὶ τοῦ τυχόντος ἂν ὑπαλλάξασθαι. We may compare the animated 


* He is about to reprove them more sharply than before. Hence he again 
removes all suspicion of enmity, and employs much previous explanation. 
Dwell not, he says, upon my words and accusations, but remember I do not 
utter them from hostile feelings. For it belongs not to one and the same man 

~ to desire that such and such persons should be saved, nay, not only to desire, 
but to pray for this, and at the same time to hate and turn away from them. 
Here he calls his vehement desire his will. And observe how he makes his 
prayer from the sentiments of his mind. For he uses both much pains and 
much prayer, not merely that they may be delivered from punishment, but 
that they might even attain to salvation. And not merely by what he here 
says, but also by the sequel does he show the good will he cherished towards 
them. For he strives and contends with all his might, endeavouring to find, 
among the things which might be excused, some shadow of apology for them; 
but is not able, being overcome by the nature of the circumstances. 

+ A nation wont to submit to voluntary death, as if it were immortality, 
rather than neglect any, were it even the least, of the traditions of their 
fathers. All men are careful of their own customs, but pre-eminently the 


350 CHAPTER X. V. 2, 3. 


description of faithfulness to, and zeal for the Law, in Jos. 6. Apion, 
1. ii. 6. 20. Historical instances are to be found in numerous pass- 
ages of Josephus, de Bel. Jud. (6. g. 1. ii. c. 17.) Compare the ob- 
servations on 6. ii. 22. Even the heathen historian, Hecateus Ab- 
derita, makes special mention of the ἐσχυξογνωμοσύνη of the Jews. In 
the New Testament, Jewish converts are spoken of as ζηλωταὶ τοῦ 
νόμου, Acts xxi. 20. Comp. Rom. ii. 17. Paul calls himself ϑηλω- 
τὴς tov νόμου, Acts xxii. 3. Gal.i. 14. Comp. Phil. iii. 5, 6. 

μαφξτυφὼ yae αὐτοῖς. Itis wrong for moderns to insist on having 
paerveéo here taken in the New Testament meaning of ἔο praise, as 
Beza, Grotius, Koppe. The primary sense of testify, not to deny, 
suits best.with the minor proposition. 

ζῆλος Θεοῦ. Some, as Schottgen, will have Θεοῦ conceived, in com- 
pliance with that Hebraism, by which the name 717” whenever joined 
to an object in a genitive relation, denotes its magnitude. But how 
very unnatural is this! In like manner as here, the genitive * 3 is 
joined with Np at Ps. lxix. 10, and οὔχον Θεοῦ with ζῇλος, John 
ES by 

ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν. Ambrose upon Ps. exviii. v. 28: Est zelus 
ad vitam, et est zelus ad mortem. ‘The zeal unto death is the run- 
ning in ways of one’s own, the ἐθελοθεξησκχεία, Col. ii. 23. It is true, 
indeed, that the ἐπύγνωσις is ofttimes present where the ζῆλος is want- 
ing. ‘Then, however, it is not the right ἐπίγνωσις. 

V.3. Statement of what the want of knowledge consists in. 

ἀγνοοῦντες yae τὴν Tov Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην. Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη is the 
righteousness which God imparts to man and so justification. Op- 
posed to it stands the ἐδία δικαιοσύνην, which man works out for him- 
self by fulfilment of the law. The latter is, Phil. iii. 9, styled ἐμὴ 
δικαιοσύνη» ἡ ἐκ νόμου, the other 7 ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη. ‘The ground on 
which the ascription of personal righteousness takes place, lies in the 
Law, whenever it is perfectly fulfilled, declaring the person righteous. 
No man, however, perfectly fulfils the spiritual law of holiness. Ac- 
cordingly, the person who seeks and thinks to possess the ἐδία δικαιο- 
σύνης if ever he attains peace in this way, falls into a fatal self-decep- 
tion, (Matt. v. 20.) If not, he becomes a prey to despair at the un- 
attainableness of his object. By the appearing of Christ in humanity, 
the means are now offered by which a new spirit is diffused over it. 
Through the belief that in Christ the δικαίωμα is bestowed upon man, 
man obtains a participation in the holy life of Christ, and the δικαίω- 
μα is also realized in him. 

ζητοῦντες στῆσαι. ἹἹστάναν here, to establish, to enforce, a meaning 
it frequently has in classical authors. See several passages in Poly- 
bius, ed. Schweigh. T. 8. P. 2, p. 308. 


Jewish nation. For any that would do away or ridicule them, they hate as 
their worst foes; and they shudder at all such as say that whether we call it 
good fortune or happiness that happens to man, it can never be changed on 
account of transgression or accident. 


CHAPTER X. V. 3, 4. 351 


οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν. ‘The aorist refers to the time when the new doc- 
trine of salvation was first offered to Israel. ‘The passive stands in 
place of the middle, as often occurs in Greek when the aorist is 
used, (Buttm. 5. 501.) See the examples in the N. ‘Test. in Winer, 
5.112. Ὡποτάσσεσθαι stands here as translation of the Aramaic 3p. 
This word is rendered, agreeably to its common meaning, by δέχεσ- 
θαι, and causes that verb to receive the Aramaic accessory import fo 
belong, follow. But it is likewise, according to its less frequent 
signification, rendered ὑποτάσσεσθαι lo follow, to be subject, and then 
again receives in Greek the cognate sense fo accept, to give credit. 

V. 4. Paul shows in how far it is improper in the Jews to cleave 
to the righteousness that is by the law. Τέλος has been very vari- 
ously understood. As to νόμος» the meaning which we already de- 
veloped in a former text (ili. 20) here recurs, viz. “The entire Jew- 
ish law, ritual and moral, as law, ἃ. 6. imposing an external obligation, 
and thus opposite to the πνεῦμα, as a quickening principle within.” 
Now, as the imperfection of that law is demonstrable on various 
grounds, and as τέλος has a multiplicity of meanings, it follows that 
the sense of this-statement of the Apostle has been very differently 
conceived. The first class of interpretations takes τέλος in the sense 
of: termination, and understands it, per met. abstr. pro concr, as 
meaning ὁ ἀφαιφῶν; ὁ xaraeyav. The great majority take νόμος to 
signify, at once, the ritual Jaw, or at least the religious institutions of 
the Jews, in regard to the externals of divine worship. So Augus- 
tine, even in his day, c. Advers. Legis et Proph. 1. II.c.'7. Gregory 
the Great, Hom. XVI. in Ezech. Schliching, Clericus, Limborch. 
In that case, we may compare ὃ νόμος χαὺ of πφοφῆταυν ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου, 
Luke xvi. 16, (Eph. ii. 15.) Even, however, if we assume the 
moral law as specially designed, the expression may be justified. 
For although Christ did not abrogate the substance of the moral law, 
he still abrogated the form as /aw, the substance of the law existing 
in the gospel as inward principle of life. We might compare Col. 
ii. 14; Eph. ii.15. In this manner the meaning of τέλος might well 
be justified, even when, as is necessary, we do not strictly discrimi- 
nate betwixt the ritual and moral parts of the Law, but conjoin the 
two as both imposing obligation. Another class of expositors take 
τέλος» in the sense, τελείωσις OF πλήξωμα, fulfilment, and this, per 
meton. abstr. pro concr. ‘They conceive the meaning to be, that 
Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law, inasmuch as its types were 
realized by him; particularly, however, that the moral precepts were 
completely fulfilled by his perfect obedience. There are also truths 
founded in Scripture, the former respecting the ceremonial law, at 
Heb. x. 1, the latter, at Mat. vi. 17; Heb. vii. 18. This explanation 
is given by Origen, Augustine, in Ps. iv., Pelagius, Ambrose, Me- 
lancthon, Vatablus, Calvin and many more. Pelagius: Talis est ille 
qui Christum credidit, illa die qua credidit qualis ille qui universam 
Jegem implevit. It would, likewise, fit excellently into the context; 
the only objection is, that it is less demonstrable in respect of lan- 


352 CHAPTER X. Vv. 4. 


guage. In Greek, it is true, we have the following phrases exem- 
plifying the usus loquendi, εἰς τέλος ἄγειν, εἰς τέλος νικᾶν, TO τέλος τῆς 
ἀνθεωπίνης σοφίας. ‘These, however, prove nothing, for in the two 
last examples, τέλος means summit, in the first, isswe, execution. It 
would be most pertinent to quote Plato, de Legibus, 1. viii. ed. Bip. 
p. 409, where, side by side, we find οἱ ἵπποι of τέλειοι, and οἱ τέλος 
ἔχοντες, ** those having the finished shape, the full grown.’’ Even 
this, however, is not demonstrative, and we still want a parallel for 
the meaning, accomplishment, fulfilment. In the LXX. and the 
Apocrypha too, this meaning does not appear. ‘There is supposed 
to be an instance of it at 1 'Tim.i.5. In compliance, however, with 
the usual usus loquendi, we will there explain τέλος, * the end and 
aim, that on which all depends, the cardo rerum.’ (In the same 
sense we find μύθου τέλος Ilias, l. xvi. v. 84.) Neither can the πλή- 
Coma τοῦ νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη οἵ Rom. xiii. 10, be adduced to render indis- 
putable the supposed meaning of τέλος in 1 Tim. i. 5. Doubtless 
πλήξφωμα has the signification of perfect execution. But why should 
it be thought that, in the kindred text, 1 Tim.i.5, the Apostle says 
literally the same thing, and not rather that he gives the thought 
under a variety of shade? ‘The Syrian, with much correctness, puts 
the fulfilment at Rom. xiii. 10, but at 1 Tim. i, 5, the sum. More- 
over, in this explanation the supposed metonyme of τέλος for ὁ τελειῶν 
is also harsh. We accordingly turn to the third conception formed 
of the word, which is to be found among the Greek fathers, Chry- 
sostom and Theodoret, and was afterwards adopted by Beza, Bucer, 
Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Turretin, Heumann and others. All these 
expositors embrace the signification, end and aim, which is quite 
common. In as far, to wit, as the utmost that the law, in all its 
parts, intends, consists in making man aware of his self-seeking 
endeavours after independence, and of his want of love to God, in so 
far was the whole period of the old covenant but a παιδαγωγὸς to- 
wards Christ, and in so far is Christ the end and aim of the law. 
For this signification of τέλος likewise, the Scripture speaks; indeed, 
the kindred passage Gal. iii. 24, is to be regarded as quite particu- 
larly parallel to the one before us. Bengel: Lex hominem urget 
donec is ad Christum confugit, tum ipsa dicit: Asylum eo nactus, 
desino te persequi, sapis, salvus es. - Chrysostom: Ei γὰς τοῦ νόμου 
τέλος ὃ Χριστὸς, ὃ τὸν Xevordv οὐχ ἔχων, κἂν ἐκεῖνον Soxy ἔχειν, οὐχ ἔχευ" 
6 δὲ τὸν Χειστὸν ἔχων, κἂν μὴ ἢ κατωφθωκὼς τὸν νὸμον, τὸ παν εὐλήφε" χαὺ 
γάρ τέλος Larerans ὑγιεία. ὥσπες οὖν 6 δυνάμενος ὑγίη ποιεῖν, κἂν μὴ τὴν 
ἱατρικὴν ἔχειν τὸ πᾶν ἔχει" ὁ δὲ μὴ εἰδὼς θεραπεύειν: κἂν μετίέναυ Soxy τὴν 
τέχνην: τοῦ παντὸς ἐξέπεσεν οὕτω χαὶ Env τοῦ νόμον καὶ τῆς πίστεως" ὃ 
μὲν ταύτην ἔχων; καὶ τὸ ἐχείνου τέλος ἔχει" ὁ δὲ ταύτης ἔξω ὧν ἀμφοτέρων͵ 
Roce ἀλλότριος. ὙΥΘ are wholly to discard the exposition of some 


* For if Christ is the end of the law, he who has not Christ has not the 
law, i. 6. legal righteousness, even although he should seem to possess it. But 
he who has Christ has got all, even though he should not have fulfilled the 


CHAPTER x. V. 5, 6. 353 


who take τέλος in the sense: ‘*Custom of the law, by which its de- 
mands are mitigated.’”” The εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὺ τῷ πιστεύοντι Stands 
in contrast with the former legal economy, under which the task 
was a more difficult one. 

V.5. The yae is merely transition particle. Paul now begins to 
lay down explicitly the relation of the two kinds of justification. 
His design in doing so is to show, that the law must in fact impel 
men to Christ. The statement, however, is connected with the παντὶ 
τῷ πιστεύοντι. We have first to remark, in respect of the reading, 
that it is very various. Codex A has ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐκ πίστεως; 
Codex D, the Coptic, Vulgate, Damascenus and others, ὅτου d.xavoov- 
vnv tx τοῦ νόμου ὃ ποιήσας. Some smaller codices accordingly read 
αὐτῇ» in place of αὐτοῖς, as do also the Coptic, the Vulgate and seve- 
ral fathers. ‘That the recepta, however, is the true reading, is mani- 
fest. The two others specified, show themselves clearly to be ex- 
planatory glosses, the more so, that not even all Codices that deviate, 
change the αὐτοῖς into αὐτῇ. 

Maio7s yae yeaper. Τεάφευν Stands in place of xazayedpeww, accord- 
ing to the Hebrew, in which there are no compound verbs. 

ὃ ποιήσας αὐτὰ κτλ. The text is from Levit. xviii. 5. The αὐτὰ 
refers to the ‘\pn-which precedes it in the text. Ζῆν, after the He- 
brew 77 signifies to be happy. ‘The ἐν, in like manner as the 2, 
has the sense through, by means of. Among the later Jews, we 
find the notion widely diffused, that the blessings promised likewise 
involve those of the life eternal. Onkelos translates: «* Whosoever 
keeps these commandments, shall thereby live in the life eternal.’ 
And in the Targum of the Pseudo Jonathan, Moses’ words are ren- 
dered: ‘* Whosoever fulfils the commandments shall thereby live in 
the life eternal, and his portion shall be with the righteous.” Eben 
Ezra observes, that to those who know the secret of the law, 7wn7 
10, Moses promises “eternal, to others temporal blessings, Luke x. 
25, 26. 

V.6. Moses (Deut. xxx. 12) had once more, awhile before his 
death, inculeated upon the people what a distinguished blessedness 
had fallen to their lot, in their being made acquainted with the Divine 
will. ‘The words of which he there made use, and which intimate 
the blessedness of the man, who needs to be no longer in doubt as to 
how he ean please God, having received a revelation upon the sub- 
ject, are applied by Paul to the man, who, in the New Testament 
period, is concerned about his salvation. ‘This application to the 
Christian of Moses’ words, will appear the less extraordinary, con- 


law. The end and aim of the medical art is health. Just, then, as he who 
can restore health has the whole matter, though he possess no medical know- 
ledge; whereas he who knows not how to cure, though he pretend to practise 
medicine, makes a total failure: so is it respecting the law and faith. He who 
has the latter has also the end of the former, but he who is without the latter 
is a stranger to both. 

45 


354 CHAPTER X. V. 6, ἣν 


sidering as even R. Bechai (who lived at the close of the thirteenth 
century) says of the same, that in their true sense, they will first 
pass into fulfilment, at the time of the Messias. (See Fagius and 
Miinster in the Crit. Sacra T. If. ad Deut. xxx. 12.) What’ Paul 
means to say then is: When, now-a-days, a sinner attains to the 
knowledge of himself, and sighs for enlightenment and justification, 
he requires not to look far and wide around him for help. If even 
Moses has commended the revelation of God’s law, because it brings 
the way of salvation so near to man, the Christian has still more 
occasion to congratulate himself on the same account: All that he. 
wants is faith, and for its attainment, he does not require to have 
even once seen Christ. He needs not more than simply “to believe 
with the heart, and to confess with the mouth.” 

By a personification, Paul puts into the lips of righteousness by 
faith, what any teacher of that might say. 

μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σοῦ, according to the Hebrew- 1292 70x, to 
think. ‘The cove’ ἔστι denotes the application which Paul makes of 
Moses’ declaration. In the self-same way the Rabbins introduce 
their applications of Biblical sayings with a 771. It is falsely main- 
tained by the major part of expositoys, ‘Theodoret, @icumenius, An- 
‘selm, Erasmus, Melancthon, Capellus and others, that by the inter- 
pretation he gives to the Mosaic words, Paul means to convey a 
reproof to the unbelieving. Ccumenius: ἕνα μὴ νομισθῇ ἡ mores εὖ- 
XATOCOWTOS, καὶ εὐχαταφεφόνητος; διὰ τοῦτο δείκνυσυ χαὺ αὐτὴν πόνου δεο- 
μένην, καὶ Meds τοὺς ἀφανεῖς λογισμοὺς ἔχουσαν τὴν πάλην. Melancthon: 
Illustribus figuris depingit impietatem cordis humani. But to give 
such a bearing to this declaration, would be wholly contrary to the 
Apostle’s train of ideas. In that case also, Paul’s interpretation 
would ill agree with Moses’ language and meaning. We are much 
rather to consider it as the Apostle’s object, to show how easy a 
matter righteousness by faith is. Accordingly, the infinitives after 
the τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, are to be regarded as statement of the purpose of that 
proceeding, which forms the subject of the question. ‘The member 
of the Old Testament theocracy needed no more te ask, Who shall 
ascend into heaven, to make known unto me God’s will? ‘The sub- 
ject of the New Testament needs just as little to put this question, 
nay, not even, Who shall ascend into heaven to bring Christ down? 

V.7. In Hebrew, there stands N17 Ὁ 2} Nd), and in the LXX. εἰς τὸ 
πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης. Several expositors, as Koppe and Bolten, suppose 
that the expression in Hebrew was the designation of the Scheol, the 
entrance to which the Hebrews, as the Greeks did that of Hades, 
(Ilias, B. vir. 478,) conceived at the farthest end of the earth and 
sea, or that the Hebrews had imagined something similar to the 
islands of the blessed, which the Greeks, as you well know, placed 


*In order that faith may not be considered an easy and contemptible 
acquisition, he shows that it too requires exertion, andhas a struggle to main- 
tain with the secret thoughts. 


CHAPTER x. v. 7, 8. 355 


in the Western Ocean, (Odyssey, B. IV. ν. 568, and the Scholiast 
on the passage.) This hypothesis, however, is destitute of all foun- 
dation. We nowhere read of a particular entrance into the Scheol. 
As to those islands of the blessed, it is true, Josephus relates, De 
Bel. Jud. 1. ii. 6. 8, § 11, that the Essenes had supposed something 
of the kind; but this demonstrates nothing, more especially for the 
era of Moses. It must be added, that the Chaldee 'argums, which 
are wont precisely to render, by circumlocution and definition, every 
doctrinal expression, translate here exactly as the LXX. ‘The con- 
jecture of Grotius might be better maintained, viz. that some other 
Greek translation or reading had εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον, ἄβυσσος being taken 
in the sense of Sea, (comp. Job xxviii. 14,) but that Paul here ap- 
plied the word in another sense. The Targum Jeruschalmi has: 
** Had we but a prophet Jonah to dive into the depths of the 568! 
There is, however, no need for this conjecture. Following the 
practice of the Rabbins in their application of Bible texts, Paul might 
very well modify the words of Scripture, in conformity to his pur- 
pose. The expression 0° 739 in Moses, is by no means of parti- 
cular significance; but rather of the proverbial kind. ‘The sea is of 
boundless extent, Job xi. 9. There unspeakable dangers threaten, 
Ps. evii. 24—26. It is accordingly the image of mighty difficulties 
opposing the attainment of any object. In the same way, flying to 
the Ὁ» NAN’ Ps. exxxix. 9, is given as an image for the accomplish- 
ment of something exceedingly difficult, or nearly impossible. But 
instead of it, Moses might have mentioned the depths of the earth. 
In the same way, heaven and hell are proverbially placed in opposi- 
tion to each other in Euripides, Pheeniss. v. 517. 


Ασπτρων ἂν EnOorn’ ἡλίου πρὸς ἀνατολὰς» 
Καὶ γῆς ἔνερθεν, δυνατὸς ὧν δρᾶσαι τάδε. 


Compare in the Old Testament, Amos ix. 2. Ps. exxxix. 8. 
Thus, considering the expression meeav τῆς θαλάσσης, had no particu- 
lar significance, Paul might very well exchange it for another, which 
Moses might equally have used, and which better answered the 
Apostle’s design. A perfectly similar application of Moses’ saying 
is made by Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, p. 875, and De prem. et 
pen. p. 922, where he also uses a periphrasis for Ὁ) 12yn, as fol- 
lows: οὐδὲ μαχεὰν τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀφέστηκεν; ἢ πέξαν θαλάσσης; ἢ ἐν toxatvars 
γῆν ὡς δεύσθαυ πολυχξονίοῦ χαὺ xamarneas ἀποδημίας, 
κτλ. In substance, it is one and the same thing, whether the sin- 
ner, in fond desire after illumination and holiness, wishes Christ out 
from the grave, or down from heaven. This second member of the 
sentence is only rhetorical amplification. 

V.8. Here St. Paul applies the positive description he has given 


* Nor has he removed the good far away, or beyond the sea, or to the remote 
parts of the earth, so that it requires a long and laborious pilgrimage. 


356 CHAPTER Χ. V. 8, 9. 


of the relation of the law to man, to the relation of the gospel, in 
reference to which Moses’ words contained a still more elevated 
truth. Respecting the law, Moses boasted that the revelation of the 
divine will was now so well known to the people of Israel, that any 
man whatever might carry them in his heart, 7. e. in his thoughts and 
upon his lips. (‘Targum Jonathan paraphrases })2v77 733, ‘in 
‘your schools.”) In afar higher sense does this redound to the 
praise of faith on the gospel. For, although Israel bore the revela- 
tion of the divine will upon the lip and in the soul, they still were 
not on that account blessed; the Christian, however, attains to 
blessedness, when he bears Christ as his Saviour, in his heart and 
on his lips. 

ἐγγύς σον τὸ ῥῆμα. 127 in Hebrew, and ῥῆμα here in Greek, might 
mean thing; the better meaning, however, in Moses, is revelation, 
and that Paul meant it to be here understood in that sense results 
from the ῥῆμα ὃ κηδυσσόμεν, which follows. Ῥῆμα πίστεως, for which 
there stands elsewhere λόγος πίστεως, 1 Tim. iv. 6, preaching or doc- 
trine. In Hebrew, we find also the part. 189 side by side with ap, 
and in the LXX. σφόδεα. The LXX. moreover, append χαὺ ἐν ταῖς 
xeeot σου. Chrysostom: Ei μηδὲ αὐτὸν βουληϑῇς ὑπεξβήναν cov οὐδὸν, 
ἔξεστί σου καὶ οἴκου καδημένῳ σωϑῆναι. ἐν γὰρ τῷ στόματι σου xat ἐν Τῇ 
xaedia tore τῆς σωτηξίας ἡ ἀφοομή. 

V.9. The description which St. Paul here gives of saving faith is 
closely connected with the words of Moses. As mention was made 
of the mouth, Paul speaks of confession. And because the mouth 
was first noticed, and then the heart, the Apostle adopts the same 
order, although, from the nature of the thing, it ought to have been 
inverted; confession emanating from faith, which consequently pre- 
cedes it. On the other hand, to be sure, Beza correctly observes, 
that it is confession which manifests the existence of faith. Calvin: 
Non est ignis ubi nihil flamme neque caloris. 

ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς. ‘Theophylact: Δεῦταν καὶ % χκαφδία, cov στόματος; 
τότε γὰξ διαλάμπεί ἡ πῦστις καὶ πλείονες ὠφελοῦνται. δεῦταυ μέντου καὺ 
τὸ στόμα τῆς καρδίας» πολλοὶ peor yae ὁμολογοῦνφαυ “Χριστὸν καϑ΄ ὑπό- 
xevow.t A genuine confession of Christ, such as bears upon the face 
the seal of a divine παῤῥησία; is necessarily a testimony to belief of the 
heart, because no one ean, from inward conviction, call Christ Lord, 
except by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. xii. 3. (Comp. 1 John iv. 2.) 
The xvecos is here the predicate of ᾿Ιησοῦν. 

ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν wyeveev. Here, according to Paul’s usual practice, 
when speaking of faith in the resurrection of Christ, it is not meant 
to be taken nude, as an article of faith, in reference to our resurrec- 


* If you should not wish to cross even your threshold, you have it in your 
power to be saved while sitting at home. For the means of salvation is in 
thy mouth and in thy heart. 

+ The heart requires the help of the mouth, for then faith shines forth, and 
many are benefited, but the mouth also needs the heart, for there are many 
who confess Christ in hypocrisy. 


Ν 


CHAPTER x. v. 9, 10, 11, 12. 357 


tion, which Pelagius and Limborch maintain. But the resurrection 
is the glorified point of exit to the life and death of the Saviour, as 
has been already mentioned, see on ch. iv. 25. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 
17; 1 Pet. i. 21. Bucer: Hee summa Evangelii est, nam cum cre- 
‘ dimus Christum excitatum e mortuis credimus eum pro peccatis 
satisfecisse et in celis regnare, ut nos ad imaginem suam perficiat. 
Calvin: Tenendum est quorsum Christus resurrexerit, nempe quod 
in eo excitando consilium Patri fuerit nos omnes in vitam restituere. 
Cordis nomen pro serio et sincero affectu. 

V. 10. Familiar with the rhythm of the Hebrew parallelism, the 

Apostle loves it even in prose. Accordingly, the two members of 
the verse are to be considered parallels, as at Rom. iv. 25. But just 
as even in Hebrew, two parallel members of a verse do not always 
contain a perfect equality of thought—we saw, ch. iv. 25, that there 
was a certain difference in the two propositions placed in this rela- 
tion—such likewise is the case here. Properly confession is vouch- 
safed with true faith, as blessedness is with justification. But then 
again confession may be conceived as the complement of faith, and 
blessedness as the complement of justification. Melancthon: Dis- 
cernit justitiam et salutem propter perseverantiam etsi enim quisquis 
est justus, est heres vite wterne, tamen fieri potest, ut justus iterum 
amittat justitiam. Ideo inquit: Si confiteberis videlicet propter fidem, 
quasi dicat si fides fuerit firma. The εἰς before δικαιοσύνην stands 
as at ver. 1 to indicate the purpose. 

V.11. The same passage from Is. xxviii. 16, which has been 
expounded at chap. ix. 33, and which shows how sure is the hope 
that rests upon the Messias. 

V.12. The casual occurrence of πὰς in the preceding quotation, 
is again taken advantage of by St. Paul, in order once more to intro- 
duce what he has always so much at heart, viz. that the believing 
Heathen are called to the kingdom of the Messias equally with the 
believing Jews. 

ὁ yae αὐτὸς Κύξιος x. ὋὉ αὐτὸς, one and the same; Kies is the 
predicate. - It is unnatural with Carpzov to look upon αὐτὸς» as NIT, 
aname of Jehovah. It is a question whether Christ is here spoken 
of, as Origen, Gicumenius,.Calov, Bengel, Wolf and others insist, or 
God, as the majority believe. ‘True that, v. 9, Christ has been called 
xvecos* that, however, of itself, is not decisive. If Paul means to 
show, that Heathens and Jews have an equal interest in the work of 
atonement, this he is accustomed at other places to prove from the 
fact, that all stand in the same relation to God, from whom the whole 
plan of salvation emanates. So Rom. ili. 30. Moreover, in oppo- 
sition to the reference of the word to Christ, it may be adduced, that 
in the citation, ver. 13, Kvecos cannot directly refer to Christ. On 
the other hand, however, it is also to be remarked, that at ver. 14, 
the eis ὃν οὐχ ἐπίστευσαν relates to Christ, and with regard to the cita- 
tion, Paul might apply it to the same, sensu eminentiore, seeing that, 
so far as it relates to the eflicacy of God in time of the Messias, it is, 


358 CHAPTER Ix. V. 12, 13, 14. 


in point of fact, to be understood, sensu eminentiore, of turning to the 
Saviour. ‘This citation, moreover, properly answers to that in ver. 
11, which Paul likewise expounded of Christ. 

πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπυχκαλουμένους αὐτόν. Ammon will have 
πλουτεὺν taken in the sense of zaovriGew* in that sense, however, we 
do not find it used. is denotes the direction, according to the con- 
ception borrowed from sense, of the divine riches extending to men. 
The connection, however, seems to intimate, that we have here to 
think of the rich grace of Christ, Eph. iii. 8. Col. ii. 8. Chrysos- 
tom: “Ogds πῶς δεύκνυσιν αὐτὸν σφοδρῶς ἐφιέμενον ἡμῶν τῆς owrneiass 
εὖγε καὶ πλοῦτον οἰκεῖον ἥγείταυ ταύτην. ὥστε μηδὲ νῦν αὐτοὺς ἀπογνῶναυ» 
μηδὲ νομίσαι, εἶγε βουληθεῖεν μετανοῆσαι; ἀσυγγνώστους εἶναι. ὃ γὰρ πλοῦ- 
τὸν οἰκεῖον ἡγούμενος τὸ σώζειν ἡμᾶς; οὐ παύσεται πλουτῶν" ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτο 
πλοῦτος τὸ εἰς πάντας ἐἔχχεῖσθαν τὴν Sweedy.* Calvin: The Jews 
needed not to be envious, even although the heathen obtained the 
same privilege with them of drawing from the divine treasury. ‘That 
is not diminished, according to the numbers who seek to share it. 
᾿Ἐπικαλέομαι, as in the LXX. for δὲ», to invoke God’s aid, to adore. 

V. 13. The Apostle confirms what he had said anew, by an Old 
Testament citation from Joel iii. 5. There the great sifting time is 
spoken of, which is to precede the introduction of the Messias’ king- 
dom. In so far, accordingly, may Paul justly apply to the invoca- 
tion of Christ, what the passage says of the invocation of Jehovah. 


raw tia. 


ISRAEL HAS NOT WANTED PREACHERS OF THIS DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. 
v. 14—21. 


V. 14. There was but one more evasion left to the Israelite, viz. 
that he had never heard of the new message of salvation. But this 
excuse, likewise, the Apostle takes away. Ccumenius: Οὐδεμία νῦν 
πεόφασις τοῦ σωθῆναι. Paul shows more than was properly required 
for his proof. He shows that the gospel in general is the common 
property of mankind. Leaving this theme at ver. 19, he again re- 
turns to the Jews, who were, equally with others, included in, the 
general message of salvation, nay, who had even a special interest in 
it. Very improbable is Grotius’ opinion, that ver. 14 and 15 are the | 


* Do you see how he represents him as exceedingly desirous of our salva- 
tion, inasmuch as he deems it his own riches. So that now they need not 
despair, nor think that they are excluded from salvation, if they choose to 
repent. For he who deems it his own riches to save us, will never cease 
being rich, this being his riches, to pour out the free gift upon all. 


CHAPTER X. v. 14, 15. 359 


words of a Jewish antagonist, which, at ver. 16, the Apostle answers. 
To pass silently over other reasons, even the Bible citation of ver. 15 
should refute this, inasmuch as St. Paul scarcely ever makes his op- 
ponents argue with Scripture text; (See on c. ix. 15,) and in the 
present case, the text in their mouth would be particularly inappro- 
priate. Paul states the objection in an animated sorites, in which he 
mounts from stage to stage to the final cause. Melancthon: Diligen- 
tissime hic locus observandus, ut sciamus quomodo Deus sit efficax 
in nobis nec queramus alias illuminationes preter verbum. 

nus οὖν ἐπυχαλέσονται. Neither in profane authors, nor the New 
Testament, does the οὖν always denote an inference consonant with 
the foregoing proposition; but sometimes, like the yam vero, an ob- 
jection flowing from what precedes. Rom. iv. 10. Matt. xxvi. 54. 
John xviii. 10. The εἰς ὃν cannot be referred otherwise than to 
Christ. Κηεύσσω; ἕο preach. Marki. 4. Luke iv. 19. 

. 15, ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσι. Calvin: Non fortuito pluit Evange- 
lium e nubibus, per manus hominum affertur quo divinitus missum 
est. Nullus preco est quem non peculiari sua providentia Deus 
suscitarit, quare non est dubium, quin Deus nationem visitet, in qua 
Evangelium annuntiatur. ‘The prophets who go where God has not 
called them, he rejects, Jer. xxiii. 21. 

καθὼς γέγεξαπιται, κτλ. ‘he mission of the messengers of the gos- 
pel was something so glorious, and their arrival so pleasant, that in 
order to show this more explicitly, St. Paul quotes a beautiful text 
containing a reference to their preaching. The text is borrowed 
from Is. 11. 7. In this whole latter part of Isaiah, the after estab- 
lishment of the ancient theocracy under the Messias, is delineated, 
but in a new and extraordinary glorious way. As was done by all 
the prophets, the poet, in these songs, figures the Messias and his 
kingdom as just at hand. The pictures which he draws, both of 
the kingdom and person of the Messias, are of so elevated a spirit-. 
uality, that they are almost Evangelical descriptions, around which 
the prophetical veil of the outward theocracy hangs as it were like a 
transparent chrysalis. In the passage quoted, the prophet describes 
the Seers of the new kingdom of God appearing upon the mountains 
on the north of Jerusalem,-and thence announcing the glory of the 
theocracy, as they there preach, ‘‘ Jerusalem thy God is, king.’ 
Jewish expositors no less apply to the Messias almost the whole of 
the chapter, besides the quotation. See Wetstein, ad-h.]. Paul 
deviates in his citation from the LXX., who translate the Hebrew 
with greater accuracy, but darkly. ‘They have: ὡς deatoe éxt τῶν 
ὀξέων ot πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου (ed. Ald. εὐαγγελιζομένῳν) ἀχοὴν εἰρήνης» 
ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά. Paul translates the Hebrew more clearly, 
only omitting whatever does not serve his purpose in the text. We 
have a passage in Nahum ii. 1, which greatly resembles that of 
Tsaias. 

&eacov ot πόδες. Per meton. the feet are described as the members 
which act in the messenger. There occurs a kindred meton. in 


360 CHAPTER x. Vv. 15, 16, 17. 


Sophocles, Electra, v. 13857, ὡς ἥδιστον ἔχουσι ποδὼν ὑπηξέτημα; to 
which the Scholiast: ποδὼν ὑπηφέτημα; διὰ yae τούτων τὰ meds σωτηξίαν 
ἡμῖν ὑπηφέτησας. Indeed, in solemn diction, the Hebrew generally 
used the metonymical circumlocution, ‘‘ the feet of some one come,” 
Thus in ‘Tikkune Sohar, fol. 32, 1, 2: ‘*So long as thou dost not yet 
behold the bright rainbow in the clouds, srw 22} ADSN 8.” 
Compare in the N. Test. Acts v. 9. The εἰρήνη is here, like niqw, 
salvation. 

V. 16. In this verse Paul delivers the result of the foregoing cli- 
max of questions. ‘That result, however, is to be found, not in the 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες, κτλ.» but in the dea ἡ πίστις, κτλ.» aS appears from the 
answer which, ver. 17 to 19, immediately succeeds. ‘The ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
πάντες κτλ.» forms, as Calvin observes, a mere appendage to the last 
query in ver. 15. On which account Michaelis appositely translates 
it: “ But yet all have not, and so on.”” In Greek ἀλλὰ ought to have 
some other particle after it, ἀλλὼ yae, or ἀλλὰ καὶ. Several, among 
whom are Chrysostom, 'Theodoret, Gicumenius, Seb. Schmidt, con- 
ceiving themselves bound to regard ἀλλὼ as the result of the previous 
questions, and who yet found that result to be properly contained in 
the dea, absurdly placed a point of interrogation after εὐαγγελίῳ, and 
supposed that Ἡσαΐας yae κτλ. inust be the answer to the question, a 
thing which would be inadmissible, even were there no other reason 
but that yag must then denote a contrast. Cicumenius: ᾿Επειδὴ τοῦτο 
αὐτῷ GPTEXELTOs OT by ἐὰν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀπεστάλητεν διὼ Tu μὴ πάντες ὑπήκουσον» 
φησὶν ὅτι xai τοῦτο πρὸ πολλοῦ ἐλέχθη." The passage is from Isa. lili. 
1, where the prophet, in prophetic vision, foretels the offence which 
the Jews would take at the humbleness of the future Messias, and 
their disbelief of his eventual exaltation. ‘The LXX. have, in their 
version, added the Κύριε, which is not in the Hebrew: St. Paul re- 
tains it. 

ἀχοὴ answers to the nyw, message. ‘The same prophetical pas- 
sage is quoted by John xii. 38, who says, that in this disbelief of the 
Jews respecting Christ, it had received its accomplishment. The 
Jewish theologians also understood it of the Messias. See Schitt- 
gen, Hore alm. T. II. in indice. 

V.17. This is the result of the preceding climax, for it would be 
unnatural to suppose, with Bengel, Heumann and Mosheim, that dea 
is here a conclusion drawn from the quotation. It might certainly be 
admitted, that in this clause, which is inferential from the previous 
queries, Paul borrows the word ἀχοὴ from the quotation. Still it is 
not necessary to suppose so, as at ver. 14, he had in the same way 
joined the verb jxovoay with πύίστεύω; and as λόγος axons, Moreover, is 
elsewhere used by the Apostle in the sense publication, preaching, 
1 Thess. ii. 13, as it also stands at Heb. iv. 2. 

ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, agreeably to the common usus loquendi, must be taken 


* Since it was objected to him, that if ye were sent by God, why have not 
all believed, he says that this was declared long before. 


CHAPTER x. V. 17, 18. 361 


as the translation of * 737 in the sense, divine revelation. Chrysos- 
tom: ob yae τὰ αὐτῶν ἔλεγον; ἀλλὰ τὰ παξὰ Tov Θεοῦ μανθάνοντες ἀπήγγελον» 
ὃ σημείων ἐστὶν ὑψηλότερον." ‘The only scruple which then arises is, 
that the proposition is not founded in the preceding questions. For 
this reason, Baumgarten’ wanted to understand ῥήμα in the sense com- 
mand. (Mark xvi. 15, this divine injunction is spoken of.) The 
proposition would then be the affirmative of the question contained 
in ver. 15. The sense of ῥῆμα; joined to God, is, however, improba- 
ble. It is more correct to suppose, that the affirmation does indeed 
involve a reference to the question of ver. 15, but one not altogether 
direct. God, Paul affirms, must act and communicate a revelation, 
if men are to preach. 

V. 18. Paul now at last gives the answer to the questions, proving 
that the Jew cannot make the objections they contain. Bucer: Cum 
fides ex Evangelio veniat, honestior causa incredulitatis Judeorum 
fuisset, si Evangelium non audiissent. ‘The ἀλλὰ shows that Paul 
obviates the objection derivable from the result he himself stated. 
We may fitly supply in thought, after ἀλλὰ, an εἴγε οὕτως ἔχει. The 
explanation of the λέγω is to be found in the dialectics of the Rabbins, 
in which, when questions occur, they are introduced by 72)8 *3N) or 
SIND NIN. Beza very absurdly supposes, that the ἀλλὰ λέγει», beside 
the question, and no less the same words with the question, ver. 19, 
are words of a Jewish opponent. Peculiar to himself is the expo- 
sition of Van Hengel (Annot. in loca, N. T. Amst. 1824, p. 142.) 
He will have ver. 18 taken as the objection of a Jewish antagonist, 
who meant to say as follows: Nonne injuste agit Deus, qui Judzis, 
quoniam voci ipsius auscultare noluerunt a se rejectis, nunc suo se 
favore, ad exteras convertit gentes, que eadem plane culpa tenentur, 
cum eque atque illi vocem ejus audiverunt. Under this voice the 
opponent understands the yoice of nature. To which the Apostle, 
admitting more than was required of him, replies: Profecto! non 
tantum fateor, gentes illas quibus annunciata nune doctrina Christi 
est vocem Dei jam antea audivisse, sed ipse ego contendo, nullam 
prorsus gentem hac caruisse institutione. ‘The ἀλλὰ reya, in ver. 19, 
would, in that case, be again Paul’s own language, in refutation of 
the objection. This second ἀλλὰ χαὶ would not be co-ordinate with 
the first, but opposed, just as in Latin at—at occurs, and also ὠλλὰ---- 
ἀλλὰ in Greek. See Wyttenbach ad Phed. p. 148. Lips. It would 
be easy to defend this construction, but it is destitute of simplicity, 
especially does it appear, that too much has been brought into the μὴ 
οὐχ ἠκουσαν. 

Upon μενὄῦνγε; see ch, 1x. 20, The citation is from Psalm xix. 5, 
and agrees both with LXX. and the Hebrew text. φθόγγος answers 
to the Hebrew 1p, string. Paul did not want to describe the propa- 


* For they spoke not their own things, but preached what they had learned 
from God, which is something nobler than miracles. 


46 


362 CHAPTER x. v. 18, 19. 


gation of the gospel in language of his own. He consequently em- 
ploys those words of the Psalmist, which were properly spoken, it is 
true, of the revelation of God in nature, but which Paul, in inspired 
elevation, likewise saw to be true with respect to the revelation of 
God in history. The Jews themselves discovered in this sublime 
passage of the Psalmist, a reference to the diffusion of the knowledge 
of the Messias’ kingdom. Sohar Genes. f. 9, observes upon it: 
“These are the words of my servant Messias, which penetrate the 
heavenly and earthly spheres.”” When we reflect what it must have 
imported to a Jew, to behold that divine revelation, which hitherto 
had only been promulgated within the narrow limits of Judea, con- 
veyed by numerous messengers, to Greeks, Romans, and Barbarians; 
when we reflect how it must have floated, before the mind of Paul, 
that now a fire had been cast into humanity which, continuing to 
kindle, generation after generation, would bring about upon the earth 
a totally new order of things; when we reflect upon all this, ean it 
appear strange that although, as yet, but an inconsiderable part of the 
οἰκουμένη had received the word of life, the Apostle should use such 
comprehensive expressions? Compare what, with the same eleva- 
tion of mind, he says at Col. i.23. What a fresh inspiration diffused 
over the new spiritual creation, by Christianity, and what prophetic 
hopes for the future are, even. after the lapse of three centuries, ex- 
pressed by Eusebius, in the Introduction to Prep. Ev. and in the 
conclusion of Athanasius’ Apol.! Philo, De Vita Mos. 1. II. p. 
654, speaks a kindred language in praise of the Mosaic law: τῶν νό- 
Mwy τὸ κλέος» Obs ἀπολέλοϊπε, διὰ πάσης τῆς οἰχουμένης mMEPoLTyxds, ἄχδι 
καὶ τῶν τῆς γῆς τεθμάτων ἔφθακεν.ἕ 

V.19. The proposition is difficult, in consequence of Paul not 
having stated what it was that Israel did not know. Now certainly 
it is most natural to go back to the prophetical declarations which are 
afterwards alluded to, and to derive from them what that was. It 
would then be, ** Did not Israel know that the heathen should like- 
wise be called?”’ In this way many expositors take it, as for instance 
Justin, Limborch, Baumgarten and Koppe. So expounded, how- 
ever, the meaning is so very special, as that the question does not 
furnish a suitable parallel to that of ver. 18. Besides, it cannot be 
denied, the ellipsis in the μὴ οὐκ ἔγνω is peculiarly harsh. The most 
judicious way would be to take the ἔγνω as intransitive, ‘* Was Israel 
not instructed?”’ It would then in some degree correspond with the 
μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν. So very groundless was the pretext of the Jews, 
(Comp. on v. 10) as to their being denied the dxoz, that, on the 
contrary, even all the Gentiles had received the glad tidings. Having 
shown that fact, the Apostle returns to the Jews, who had been the 
nearest to the message of salvation. In this general way has the 


* The fame of the laws which he left behind, spread through the whole 
habitable world, has reached even to the extremities of the earth, 


CHAPTER X. v. 19, 20. 363 


passage been understood by Chrysostom and Grotius. Other inter- 
preters deviate widely from each other. Ambrose: ‘* Have not some 
from among Israel known?’’ Erasmus: ‘Tad they then received 
no clear knowledge of Christ??? Calvin: ‘* Has it then been possible 
for such a nation as Israel to misunderstand?*’ Baldwin: “ Did not 
Israel know that they were the chosen people?”” Heumann: ‘ Have 
the Israelites not believed?” Wetstein construes meazos with ᾿Ισφαήλ. 
πρῶτος Muwiions λέγει. The πεῶτος has probably been placed here, 
in consequence of the following citations from Isaiah being, in respect 
of time, subsequent to Moses. ‘The testimony acquired weight, from 
the fact of having been already uttered at so remote a period as that 
of Moses. The passage is taken from Deut. xxxii. 21, agreeably— 
except as regards ihe word ὑμᾶς, in whose place stands abrois—to 
the LXX. and to the original text. The παξαζηλώσω, for which we 
have ΡΝ in Hebrew, is to be explained from that conjugal relation 
in which, according to a trope common among all eastern nations, 
God stands with the people. In the previous part of the text it was 
said: ‘* They have moved me to jealousy, by that which is not God.” 
This jealousy on God’s part, accordingly, is the effect of his love, 
and hence it is said of prophecies which emanate from his love, that 
the zeal of the Lord will perform them, (Is. ix. 7. 2 Kings xix. 
31.) The prophet longs for the zeal of the Lord, (Is. Ixiii. 15.) 

oix ἔθνος stand joined together per hyphen, which in the Hebrew 
is common for substantives and adjectives, and so also in the Greek: 
ἡ ov περιτεύίχίσις, “the not walling around.”? ‘Thuc. Hist. 1. III. ο. 
95. Only in Latin this is not allowable. The meaning of the pas- 
sage in Moses is: ‘If you serve gods which are not gods, I will move 
you to jealousy, by favouring the nation of the Canaanites, which is 
as good as no nationatall.’”? That the passage contains a prediction, 
properly so called, can therefore not be affirmed. ’Ezi, as in various 
modes of construction, e. g. verba letandi, dolendi, denotes the occa- 
sion. 

V. 20. Still more strongly is God’s dealing with unbelieving Israel, 
on the one hand, and on the other with the heathen, expressed in the 
text, Is.lxv.1,2. The one from Moses could properly serve only 
to characterize generally God’s conduct towards the Jews, in the 
event of their proving rebellious, whereas the present appears to be 
a genuine prediction respecting the admission of the heathen to 
the place of the covenant people. There follows, viz. after the 
words quoted: “I said behold me, behold me, unto a nation that 
was not called by my name.” In Hebrew, the passage runs: x97 
smegma Rw x09 ΓΙ Ὑ2 03 In the LXX. ἐμφανὴς ἐγενήθην τοῖς 
ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν, εὑφέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ξητοῦσιν. Paul quotes from 
memory. ’ 

“Hoaias δὲ ἀποτολμᾷ. ‘The δέ stands opposed to a μέν, which must 
be mentally supplied after πεῶτος inv. 19. The construction ἀποτολμᾷ 
καὺ Aéyec, in place of the infin. aéyew is considered as a Hebraism, 


364 CHAPTER X. Y. 20, 21. 


inasmuch as in that language, certain verbs are taken with others to 
form one idea. Here, however, the usage is a sort of universal one, 
Paul calls that a boldness in the prophet; and, in truth, the boldness 
of several declarations in the latter part of Isaiah cannot be suffi- 
ciently wondered at. Comp. Ixvi. 3. Nay, in v.21, he speaks with 
such a boldness, as only a member of the New Testament could have 
assumed, for he declares, that even from among the heathen, priests 
of God shall be called. Who can fail to be surprised that such a 
divine παῤῥησία remained unresented by the blind people! 

ζητεὶν and ἐπερωτὰν τὸν Θεὸν is, according to the Hebrew, signifi- 
cant of adoration. Here again we have a picture of the character of 
Gentilism, as at ch. ix. 30. 

V.21. Although the heathen do not seek after God, still they re- 
ceive him when he makes himself known, whereas Israel, when he 
presents himself, resists him. ‘The passage forms the 2d verse of Is. 
Ixv., and is quite according to the version of the LX X. excepting only 
that ὅλην τὴν ἡμέξαν stands after yeceus. 

neos would not be appropriately taken in the sense of fo, as Luther 
translates; better in regard, respecting, which sense it frequently 
has in other passages of the New Testament, Luke xii. 41; xviii. 1. 
To stretch out the hand, is equivalent to calling, Prov.i.24. Chry- 
sostom: Εἶδες nosy ἡ κατηγορία; ovroe μὲν οὐδὲ παξακαλοῦντν ἐπείσθησαν, 
ἀλλὰ χαὺὶ ἀντεῖπον; καὶ ταῦτα οὐχ ἅπαξ, οὐ δὺς» οὐ TELS, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ παν- 
τὸς τῇ YEOvE ταῦτα τοιαῦτα ὁξῶντες. ἔτερου δὲ οἱ μηδέποτε αὐτὸν ἐγνω- 
κότες ἴσχυσαν αὐτὸν ἐπισπάσασθαι, ἄλλ᾽ οὐ λέγευ OTL αὐτοὶ ἴσχυσαν, ἀλλὰ 
καϑαιρὼν καὶ τῶν ἐξ ἐδνὼν τὸ φρόνημα; καὶ δεικνὺς τὴν αὐτὰ yaew τὸ πᾶν 
ἐδγασαμένην. Φησὶν OTL ἐγὼ ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην, καὶ Ἐγὼ εὑφέϑην. οὐκοῦν 
κενοὶ πάντων ἔχεῖνοί φησιν; οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ τὸν εὑφεϑέντα λαβεῦν καὶ τὸν 
φανέντα ἐπυγνῶναυ, τοῦτο παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν εἰσήνεγχαν. εἶτα iva μὴ λέγωσιν 
οὗτοι, διὰ τί οὖν χαὶ μιν ἐμφανὴς οὐχ ἑγίνου; τὸ πλέον τούτον τίθησιν; OTL 
οὐ μόνον ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην,» ἀλλὰ καὶ παξέμευνα τὰς χεῖρας ἀναπεταννὺς καὺ 
παξακαλῶν, πατρὸς PrAosoeys καὶ μητρὸς φιλόπαιδος κηδεμονίαν ἐπυδευκνύ- 
μενος. ὅρα πῶς σαφεστάτην τῶν ἔμπξοσθεν διαπορηθέντων ἁπάντων τὴν 
λύσιν ἐπήγαγε, δείξας τῆς γνώμης αὐτῶν τὴν ἀπώλειαν γενομένην, καὶ ὡς 
πάντοϑεν ἀνάξιοι συγγνώμης εἰσί. If from this passage, we once more 


* Observe you how great the accusation ist Even when he entreated them, 
the Jews refused to obey, nay, they resisted him, and that not once or twice 
or thrice, but even during the whole period they beheld him doing these great 
things. Whereas the others (the Gentiles) who had never known him, were 
enabled to lay hold of him. He does not, however, say that they were able 
of themselves, but overthrowing the pride even of believers from among the 
Gentiles, and in order to show that all is done by his grace, he says: I was 
made manifest and I was found. Are they then destitute of all share in the 
matter, you say? Not at all. The reception of him when found, and the 
recognition of him when’revealed, came from them. Again, that the former 
(the Jews) may not plead, Why then, wert thou not manifested to us also? 
he urges something more than this, that he had done. Not only was I made 
manifest, but I even continued stretching out my hand and beseeching you, 


CHAPTER X. Vv. 21. 365 


look back upon the 10th and 9th chapters, it is manifest how little 
Paul ever designed to revert to a decretum absolutum, but meant to 
cast all blame upon the want of will in man, resisting the gracious 
will of God. 


showing the care of an affectionate father and of a loving mother. Mark how 
wise a solution of all former difficulties, proving that they had voluntarily 
brought destruction upon themselves, and how in every way they were un- 
worthy of pardon. 


CHAPTER ELEVENTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


Tut Apostle had shown how, and why it happens that Israel, the first-born, 
was excluded from the Messias’ kingdom, while the Heathen obtained 
admission. To obviate misconception, he now lays down that his words 
must not be interpreted to the effect that the Jewish nation, as such, were 
to be excluded. It is much more true, not only that many of them do 
at present obtain salvation, but that at a future period, the nation once 
more, as a whole, shall acquiesce in the Christian economy of salvation. 
The Gentile ought therefore to beware of indulging vain glory over Israel 
on account of the present rejection of the major part of the nation, and the 
reception of multitudes of the heathen. It is the grace of God which gives 
the Gentile salvation, and only rebellious resistance to that grace, which 
excludes the Jew. Let once the Gentile be puffed up on this account, and 
God will so much the more readily exclude him, that he did not spare his 
old covenant people. At last the Apostle finishes with an elevating pros- 
pect of a time, when Jew and Gentile would both be united in faith upon 
Christ Jesus. To overcome men’s unbelief, God employs various means; 
so great, however, are his wisdom and mercy, that he knows how to bring 
all at last to the one great goal of salvation in Christ. 


DIVISION. 


1, Israel has not been wholly rejected. V.1—10. 
2. Let not the Heathen be puffed up at the fall of Israel. V. 11—24. 


3. After the fulness of the Gentiles shall have entered in, there will be a con- 
version of Israel as a whole. V.25—32. 


4, The unfathomable wisdom and love of God, with which the whole economy 
of salvation has been arranged. V.33—36. 


PA B/E: i. 


ISRAEL HAS NOT BEEN ENTIRELY CAST OFF. v. 1---10. 


V.1. Ar the close of the previous chapter, the Apostle had spoken 
so strongly and decidedly on the subject of the stubbornness of Israel, 
that it might appear as if the whole nation, conjointly and severally, 
had, by some special judgment of God, been shut out from the Mes- 
sias’ kingdom. ‘This Paul denies. The purposes of God have not 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. y. 1, 2. 367 


been wholly frustrated with respect to Israel; from it the first heralds 
of the gospel have gone forth. ‘The οὖν is to be here explained as 
at ch. x. 14. The question which Paul proposes is not framed with 
sufficient precision. He ought properly to have appended ἅπαντα or 
ὅχον tO τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ. Accordingly, what he hereby denies is an 
unconditional sentence of rejection. ‘The Apostle instances himself; 
and his example carried with it the more weight, inasmuch as it was 
he who had taught the rejection of Israel. ‘The minuter definition 
of Ἰσξαηλίτης, ἐκ onéeuaros ’AGe., only serves for amplification. In 
the Talmud. Jerusch. Tr. Berachoth: 72 ‘sw “N17. Pelagius: 
Ex semine Abraham non ex semine proselytorum. In the same way 
Paul describes his extraction, Phil. iii. 5. Chrysostom: 6ea οὖν τὴν 
χατασχευνὴν τήν τε πξοτέξαν, καὶ τὴν μετ᾽ ἐκείνην. πεοτέρα μὲν γὰφ ἐστὶ 
τὸ δεῖξαι Gre αὐτὸς ἐχεῖθεν ἦν. οὐχ ἂν δὲν εὖ ἀπωθεῦσθαν αὐτοὺς ἔμελλεν» 
ᾧ τὸ χήφυγμα πᾶν, xdi τὰ πεάγματα τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐνεπίστευσε, καὺ τὰ 
μυστήξια πάντα, χαὶ τὴν οἰχονομίαν ὅλην, τοῦτον ἂν ἐκεῖθεν ἐξελέξατο. 
αὕτη μὲν οὖν μία κατασκενή.ἢ 

_ V.2. In instancing himself as a proof that God had not rejected 
his people, he only proposed to obviate an erroneous assertion. He 
now positively maintains, that the number of believing Israelites, dis- 
persed, as they were, in all quarters, and living, as many of them, 
although conscientious Christians, still did, under the external garb 
of Judaism, appeared doubtless very inconsiderable, but might yet, 
if properly known, be in reality of no small magnitude. ‘The article 
τὸν before λαὸν, most expositors conceive to be demonstrative, and 
λαὸν αὑτοῦ equivalent to οἱ éxaexroc, as in other passages iS λαὸς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ Paul meaning, they suppose, to say, that God does not reject 
that pious portion of Israel, whom he zeoéyrw. So Origen, Augus- 
tine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Limborch, Baldwin, 
Schlichting and many others. ‘These expositors, however, vary in 
the explanation of πξοέγνω. Lutherans and the Greek Fathers inter- 
pret it, ‘to foreknow, viz. that they shall one day believe,” (‘Theo- 
doret: τοὺς» τῆς θεογνωσίας ἀξίους» τοὺς τῆς πίστεως δεξαμένους τὴν αἴγλη»); 
the Arminians and Calvinists, as Augustine had already done, to 
love before. See what is said on chap. vili. 29. But it appears to 
be a very arbitrary exegesis, when the relative is here taken restrict- 
ively, as if it referred to the demonstrative τὸν, and when λαὸς αὑτοῦ 
obtains a different sense from what it bore at ver. 1, viz. the empha- 
tic one of * people whom God loves,” in which sense the Hebrew 
word ‘py was already used. If Paul, under the λαὸν αὑτοῦ, had meant 
to understand the spiritual Israel, he must in some way have modi- 
fied the expression, in order that it might not be considered as re- 


* Behold then, both the first and second proof. The firstis to show that he 
himself sprang from that nation. For, haditbeen God’s intention to reject that 
nation, he never would have selected from it the individual to whom he was 
about to entrust the entire work of preaching and the concerns of the whole 
globe, and all the mysteries and the whole economy of his church. This, 
then, is one proof. 


368 CHAPTER XI. V. 2. 


sumption of ver. 1. And although the aim of the Apostle to show, 
that God had not rejected the people as such and in foto, is certainly 
likewise attained, when he demonstrates that those favourites of God 
whom he foreknew or fore-loved, are not excluded, still the argument 
becomes far more decisive, when we suppose that he shows, from the 
relation of God to Israel as the covenant people, that no rejection of 
them nationally can-take place. We hence perceive that this τὸν 
λαὸν αὑτοῦ is merely a resumption of the same words in ver. 1, and 
hold ὃν xeoéyra to be a description which applies to the whole people 
of Israel. It is thus taken by Heumann, Bengel, ‘Taylor, Mosheim, 
Baumgarten, Chr. Schmid and others. Hunnius: Deus jam olim 
agnovit hune populum pro suo, quem sibi in peculium sanctissimo 
foedere delegit et assumsit. Ergo non jam feederis illius ita erit im- 
memor, ut sine omni discrimine omnes et singulos Hebrezos, etiam 
credentes, a sua gratia projectos velit. As to the πεοέγνω, we shall 
take it in that sense which it is so very easy to vindicate in re- 
spect of language, and which here suits so admirably with the con- 
nection, “to predetermine, viz. to make them the covenant people.” 
See upon the word, ch. viii. 29. Asa parallel to our text, we might 
then consider ver. 29 of the present éhapter, which also serves to 
confirm the exposition we have embraced. ‘The sense accordingly 
is: ** God having, from the world’s foundation, assigned to Israel its 
vocation as covenant people, it cannot be conceived that God would 
now reject them as a people.” 

Ἣ obx οἴδατε ἐν Haig χτλ. The Apostle adduces a case from the 
history of the Old 'lestament, which conveys a fine doctrine with 
respect to the subject in hand. When the idolatrous Ahab had made 
a massacre of all the prophets of the true God, Elias, having fled 
from the sword, imagined himself the only one who had escaped, 
and who truly served the Lord. Contrary to his conjecture, how- 
ever, there were still a great number of true Israelites concealed. Pe- 
lagius; Omnes prophete illa tantummodo sciebant, que illis fuerant 
a Deo revelata. Ita et Elias preter se esse alios qui Deum colerent 
ignoravit. Si prophetam tanti latuerunt, quanto magis vos nescitis 
quam multi Judzorum salvati sunt et salvandi. Chrysostom: 6 δὲ 
λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἔστι" οὐκ ἀπώσατο ὃ Θεὸς τὸν λαόν. εἰ γὰξ ἀπώσατο; οὐδένα 
ἂν ἐδέξατο. εἰ δὲ ἐδέξατό τινας», οὐκ ἀπώσατο. καὶ μήν, φησιν; εἰ μὴ ἀπώ- 
σατο, τάντα ἂν ἐδέξατο. οὐδαμῶς. καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ "Hara ἐν ἑπτακισχιλίους 
περίεστη τὰ τὴς σωτηξίας, καὶ νῦν δὲ evxds πολλοὺς εἶναυ τοῦς πεπιστευ- 
κότας. εἰ δὲ ἀγνοεῖτε ὑμεῖς, θαυμαστὸν οὐδὲν, ἐπεὺ δὲ ὃ προφήτης ἐκεῖνος 6 
τοσοῦτος καὶ τηλικοῦτος GYNE ἠγνόει» ἀλλ᾽ ὃ Θεὸς φχονόμεν τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, καὺ 
τοῦ πεοφήτου ἀγνοοῦντος" σχόπευ δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν σύνεσιν; πῶς ἐν τῷ κατα- 
σχευάζειν τὸ πδοχείμενον λανθανόντως THY κατηγοξίαν αὐτῶν αὔξει. διὰ γὰξ 
τοῦτο χαὶ πάσης ἐμνήσθη τῆς μαξτυξίας, ἵνα αὐτὼν ἐχπομπεύσῃ τὴν Gyva- 
μοσύνην, καὶ δείξῃ τοιούτους ἄνωθεν ὄντας. ἢ 


* What he says is to this effect: God has not rejected the people. Forhad 
he rejected them, he would not have received one. If, however, he has re- 


CHAPTER XI. ν. 2, 3, 4. 369 


ἐν "Hata. + This ἐν has been misunderstood by not a few, who, 
imagining that, after the Hebrew, an interchange of 3 and 4y has 
taken place, explain it de, concerning. So Vatablus, Beza, Calov. 
But it is much more correct to take it in its:proper sense, and consi- 
der “Haig as designating that part of Holy Scriptures where Elias is 
spoken of. ‘That, the Rabbins are wont, in this way, to cite the 
Scripture, according to the chief topic, is asserted by Surenhusius. 
We have another instance in the New Testament, in which the same 
thing is clearly shown, Mark xii. 26. zac τῆς βάτου ‘in the place 
which speaks of the bush.”? ‘The Greeks, too, sometimes quoted 
Homer in this manner. It is, for instance, quite common to say: ἐν 
τῷ τῶν νεῶν καταλόγῳ; ἐν νεχνομανφείᾳ. So Thucydides, Hist. |. 1. 6.9, 
quoting that poet, says, ἐν τῇ σχήτέτξον παξαδόσει; by which he de- 
signs the 2d Book of the Iliad, v. 100, where it is related how 
Jupiter devolved the kingdom upon Agamemnon. ‘The formula τί 
λέγευ ἡ yeapy, after the Rabbinical 31Ndn WN. 

ἐντυγχάνειν tui, is per se the same as προσέφχεσθαι; but joined to 
ὑπέρ τινος, it means, both in profane authors and in the New Testa- 
ment, fo intercede, with xara τινος, to accuse, complain. 1 Mace. 
Vili SS. ποθ}: 

V.3. The passage is from 1 Kings xix.10. It is quoted by Paul © 
in an abridged form from the LXX. The θυσιαστήριά σου are the 
altars of the true God, which the idolatrous Ahab had caused to be 
destroyed. ‘The prophets of the Lord had been slain by command 
of Jezebel, 1 Kings xviii. 4, so that Elias says, in ver. 22 of that 
chapter, “I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord, but Baal’s 
prophets are four hundred and fifty men.”” The phrase, ζητεῖν τὴν 
ψυχήν also stands at Mat.ii.20. Ψυχή, as translation of the Hebrew 
w5), means here, life. 

V. 4. Xenuarcoucs. In the Old Testament passage, God himself 
does not deliver this saying, but only a@ voice of God, 1 Kings xix. 
13. Agreeably to the Jewish theology, God, in the latter days of 
the Theocracy, appeared ever more and more seldom. It was merely 
by a np na, daughter of the voice, that he intimated his presence. 
Jarchi zu Berachoth, c. 1, explains the expression, Echo of the voice. 
It was imagined that in Bath Kol, the analogon only of the voice 
divine is audible to man. ‘The foundation of this doctrine, which 


ceived some, he has not rejected them. Nay, but you will say, If he had 
not rejected them, he would have received them all. By no means. Be- 
cause, in the days of Elias, salvation was confined to seven thousand, and it 
is probable that now there are many who believe. And as to your ignorance 
of this, that is no way wonderful, considering that that prophet, being such 
and so great a man, was also ignorant in the other case. But God managed 
his own affairs notwithstanding the prophet’s want of knowledge. Reflect 
upon the Apostle’s skill, and how, in proving the proposition before him, he 
secretly augments the charge against them. For the object he had in view 
in bringing forward the whole of that testimony, was to manifest their ingra- 
titude, and show that of old they had been what they now were. 
AT 


370 CHAPTER XI. V. 4. 


conceals a profound idea, is to be discovered in 1 Kings xix. 13. 
Xenuareouds is the translation of yp. 

In the LXX., the passage—excepting only the xavanevpers—is thus 
faithfully translated after the Hebrew: Καὶ καταλεύψευς ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἑπτὰ yen 
λιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γόνατα ἃ οὐκ ὥκλασαν γόνυ τῷ Baar. The Complu- 
tensian alone, agreeably to the Hebrew, reads χαταλεύψω. In like 
manner, the Vulgate also translates in the first person. Moreover, 
the Compl., in place of ὄὥχλασαν, has ἔχαμψαν. Paul cites the saying 
merely as an excerpt, and, agreeably to the Hebrew ‘1Nwn, puts 
the first person. ᾿Ἐμαντῷ means, for my service. “Encaxaytacovs 15 
like the Latin sexcenti, a round number. Both the simple number 
7, 70, and likewise 40, are used as round numbers. 

τῇ Βάαλ. ὮΨᾺ properly means Zord, and was the name which 
the Phenicians gave to the sun, adored by them as a masculine di- 
vinity. They styled it likewise Moloch, or king. In the LXX. the 
masculine article is usually joined with this name, occasionally, how- 
ever, as in the present instance, the feminine; to wit, Hosea ii. 8. 
Jer. ii. 8; xix. 5, Zeph.i.4. In Tobit i. 5, there stands τῇ Βάαλ» 
τῇ δαμάλει, or as the Compl. reads, τοῦ Βάαλ τῇ δυνάμει. (This must 
not be considered either as Drusius ‘affirms the translation of 5x, or 
as most others, of 7133, but, according to the common usage of the 
LXX., appears to be used for 823, and is then to be rendered by Star: 
Thus Zeph. i. 5, after tues τὰ ὀνόματα τῆς Βάαλ; there follows im- 
mediately xai τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐξανοῦ. In this 
passage, however, the recepta is the more correct reading, for both 
the Hebrew translation of Fagius, as well as that edited by Miinster, 
gives the δάμαλις», and the Syriac renders accordingly. ‘There then 
arises the question, from what source in these passages of the LXX., 
and in the present of Paul, proceeds the use of the word in the femi- 
nine gender?’ Erasmus, Beza and Grotius suppose a constructio ad 
sensum, to wit, with ἡ εἰκὼν, as vouchers for which they produce, 
Dan. ill. 8, εὐστήκευσαν ἐνώπιον τῆς εἰκόνος; and ver. 18, τῇ εὐχόνι προσ- 
χυνοῦμεν. Now, doubtless, these texts demonstrate that statues 
were adored, but they do nothing more. Others on ‘the contrary, 
supposed that Βάαλ was also the name of a female divinity, perchance 
of the moon. So Brais, Beyer: addit. ad Selden de diis Syris, Chr. 
Schmid and others. In support of this opinion it might be urged, 
that along with the name of the male divinity 5», that of the female, 
noon was revered by the Phenicians. (Even in his time Abarbanel 
observes, on Jer. xliv., that it is highly probable 729: means queen, 
and was applied to the moon, as 4 and 5y3, to the sun. Gesenius 
has scruples about this explanation. It appears exceedingly admis- 
sible, however, if we take into account, that Plautus in the Poe- 
nulus calls Moloch, Baalsaamen. This name Augustine, who 
was master of the Punic, Qu. 15, ad Judic. 2, 13, expressly inter- 
prets by ‘‘dominus celorum.” How consonant then would be o'nwn 
nan. Nay, it even seems that Herodotus knew this name of Astarte, 
when he calls the Urania, which Dido brought from Pheenicia to the 


CHAPTER XI. Υ.᾽ 4, 5, 6. 371 


Carthaginians, ’Acreodeyy. ‘Tertullian styles her Dea celestis, and 
the road which led to her temple, was called Via celestis: (See 
Miinster, Ueber die Religion der Carthager.) It might likewise be 
urged, that there was a Phenician goddess, with the female name of 
Βααλτὶς (Euseb. Prep. Ev. 1. I., ¢. 10. p. 38), and, in fine, that most 
nations adore the sun and moon, as male and female. But against 
the whole hypothesis there lies the decisive objection, that ἡ Βάαλ 
occurs along with Astarte, who, according to Lucian and Creutzer 
(Symb. b. II. s. 105), is the moon, or at least the personification of 
the female principle. Moreover, in Jer. xxxii. 35, ἡ Βάαλ is used as 
identical with ὁ Moaoy, and 1 Kings xix. 18, the mase. pron. αὐτῷ 
refers to it. Others would have it that Baoa had been a deity of 
double sex, as Deus Lunus and Dea Luna (Creutzer Β. II. 5. 9), 
which, they say, both pictures and coins avouch. It is well known 
that even the Dea Syria, is represented with the phallus. It cannot, 
however, be supposed that Baal, when mentioned along with Astarte, 
can be conceived of both genders, as, according to the ancient ‘Theo- 
sophy, the two principles were either represented as identical, or 
separately opposed to each other. It hence appears most judicious 
to suppose, that the feminine is expressive of contempt. Jerome on 
Hosea x. 5, holds that there the feminine ΠῚ} stands ad irrisionem. 
In the Koran, the Heathen Arabs, whose deities had female names, 
are thus reproachfully addressed: ‘* Would you wish to have only 
male children, and yet give to God female ones?’’ Sure, LIII. v. 19. 
(See on this passage Pococke, Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 91.) Compare 
Sure, xvi. ver. 59, and Sale’s Annot. Moreover, not only is the 
Arabie word for an idol feminine, but likewise the Rabbins. call the 
heathen deities, M7178. 

V.5. Now comes the application of the divine words to the case 
in hand. The points of similitude are as follows: Just as little as 
the residue of faithful believers, in those days, was discoverable 
by the human eye, can any individual at the present time see how 
great is the number of believers on Jesus from among Israel. As 
God, in the days of an idolatrous Ahab, took care to preserve a holy 
seed, he does sonow. With regard to λεῖμμα, we have to compare 
what, in a doctrinal sense, was said, chap. ix. 29, upon χατάλεῦμμα. 
The Apostle seems to use λεύμμα in precisely the same sense. As to 
the number of this aciuua it isspoken of, Acts il. 41; xxi. 20. Kar’ 
ἐχλογὴν χάρυτος. ‘The genitive of the noun, according to the well 
known Hebraism, stands here forthe adj., ‘‘the gracious election.” 
In proof, see Eph. i. 5, χατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν τοῦ ϑελήματος αὐτοῦ. Upon 
ixaoyn, compare the obs. onc. ix. 11. 

V.6. According to his usual practice of improving every opportu- 
nity to destroy the delusion of a claim on the part of man, Paul does 
so here. ‘This statement of the sharp antithesis betwixt ἔργα and 
χάρις is quite casually connected with the xaz’ ἐχλογὴν χάριτος. Chap. 
iv. 4, is parallel. The meaning, accordingly, is simply as follows: 
Grace and desert by work stand in absolute antithesis, and mutually 


372 CHAPTER ΧΙ. V. 7, 8. 


exclude one another. In regard to the reading, we have to observe, 
that the words εἰ δὲ ἐξ teyav—eyow are wanting in Codd, AC DEF, 
47, and in the Koptic, Arminian and Athiopic, the Vulgate and Italian 
versions, in Chrysostom, 'Theodoret, Damascenus and Jerome. The 
proposition, which is just the preceding one inverted, manifests itself 
at the same time so strongly to be a gloss, and in the lips of Paul 
would appear so weak and impotent, that its spuriousness, both on 
‘internal, as well as on external grounds, is not to be doubted. Eras- 
mus, Grotius,-Wetstein and Griesbach agree in declaring it to be a 
loss. 

V.7. Summary of the result. Grotius: Quid ergo est quod doceo? 
An eos qui olim amati fuerant a Deo jam dispectos? Non sane. 
Chrysostom: ‘Eavra yae μάχεταί, φησιν, ὃ Iovdaios, ζητῶν δικαιοσύνην 
ἣν οὐ βούλεται λαβεῖν. εἶτα ἀποστερῶν αὐτοὺς πάλυν συγγνώμης» ἀπὸ τῶν 
εἰληφότων δείκνυσιν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀγνωμοσύνην, οὕτω λέγων. ἡ ae ἐκλογὴ 
ἐπέτυχε, κἀκχεῖνον τούτους κατακχρινοῦσι....««(ἵνα γὰρ μηδεὶς τῇ TOV πράγ- 
ματος φύσει ἐγκαλῇ»ν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐκείνων γνώμῃ» δείκνυσυ καὶ τοὺς ἐπυτυχόντας.Ἐ 
In place of τούτον Codices A Ο D E ἘΝ 1, 13,14, 17,18, read τοῦτο. 
It could be said against this reading, that it only suits the aceusative 
of the relative 6. It might, however, be perhaps more correct, espe- 
cially as the external proofs are of some weight, to suppose that the 
gen. τούτου is spurious, and was introduced merely because it is 
only in Greek poetry that τυγχάνειν governs the accusative. ᾿Επιδητεῦν 
is stronger than ζητεῖν. ᾿Ἰσξαὴλ means here the people as a whole, 
What it sought was the διχαιοσύνη. Chap. ix. 31, is parallel. Ἢ 
ἐχλογὴ is abst. pro concr. like ἡ πεξιτομὴ; ἡ axeoBvorca. Soin Hebrew 
snap. At Dan. xi. 15, stands r3nan oy, for which the LX X. render 
οἱ ἐχλεχτοὶ αὐτοῦ. ᾿Επωφώθησαν from πῶξος callus, occaluerunt. 

ν. 8. The Apostle produces examples from Scripture to show, 
that it is nothing new for Israel to be hardened, on the contrary, that 
often before it had fallen into a similar delusion, and that what now 
took place was just what the men of God had formerly declared re- 
specting her. ‘The words of the quotation are blended together from 
two parallel passages, as is often done by the Rabbins, see ix. 33. 
As far as χατανύξεως they are from Is. xxix. 10, to which passage 
Paul likewise appeals, 2 Cor. ili. 14,15, Paul quotes from memory, 
and hence substitutes the more unusual word πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς xvevos IN 
Is. xxix. 10, to which 02) answers in Hebrew with the more unusual 
ἔδωκεν. 

κατάνυξις, according to the usus. loquendi of the LXX., means 
deep sleep, as translation of the Hebrew nna. Where the spirit of 
slumber exists, nothing that is spiritual can be rightly understood. 


* The Jew, he says, fights against himself. Although he seeks righteous- 
ness, he does not choose to accept of it. Again, depriving them of every 
excuse, he shows, from all they had received, their ingratitude, speaking to 
this effect: “The election hath obtained it; and these will condemn them... 
For that no one may complain of the nature of the thing, but their own mind, 
he declares who they are that have obtained it. 


CHAPTER XI. Vv. 8, 9. 373 


God is represented as ἀφοσμητιχῶς the author of this Spirit. ‘The 
passage in Deut. xxix. 3, runs: pow) ONT MIND DWI AT 39 Ὁ27 
μὰ > nin arn ay. Now, as in this passage from Moses, the nega- 
tion is wanting beside the verbs of seeing and hearing, it was sup- 
posed that only the final words, “until this day,’’ were taken’ from 
Deut. xxix. 3, but that those which precede are from Is. vi. 10, 
where they occur precisely as here quoted. This is certainly possi- 
ble; it is, however, no less so, that Paul quoted merely the meaning 
of the passage, as 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15. The eye and ear are the instru- 
ments of the understanding. ‘The impenitent are destitute of the 
right sense for understanding what is spiritual. 

V.9. The passage is borrowed from Ps. lxix. 22, where David, 
under his oppression, invokes severe calamities upon his foes. He 
regards the enemies of the theocracy as his own; and, agreeably to 
his position in the Old Testament economy, he wishes that the divine 
justice might be revealed, and visibly manifest itself in the protection 
of the theocracy. In what way David, in opposition to those who 
were his adversaries, looked upon himself as the representative of 
such as feared the Lord, and his enemies as the enemies of God and 
the Theocracy, we perceive, from Ps. cxxxix. 21, ‘Do not I hate 
them, Ὁ, Lord, that hate thee? and am 1 not grieved with them that 
rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred, I count them 
mine enemies.” David calls upon God to chastise the enemies of 
order, because otherwise the divine-authority would be contemned. 
Ps. x. 12, 13; exl.9. The help, vouchsafed by God to the righteous 
against their adversaries, shows that he favours those that fear him, 
Ps. xli. 12. When contemplated from the theocratical point of view, 
that even the imprecation of the prophets against foreign nations are 
not so dreadful as might be supposed, that the nation might be cursed, 
and yet the individual loved, is shown by Lessing in an ingenious 
- narrative, (Siimmtliche Schriften, Bd. vii. 5. 114.) A noble elevation, 
above private revenge, in perfect accordance with Prov. xxiv.'17, 18, 
and Matt. v. 44, is displayed by David in history, 1 Sam. xxiv. 2 
Sam. xvi. 6; xix. 2,3. 2 Sam. xviii. ΤῸ the Apostle’s purpose 
only ver. 24 of Ps. lxix. belongs. He takes in, however, the words 
joined to them. ‘The citation coincides almost perfectly with the 
LXX., which, however, deviates somewhat from the Hebrew. , 

γενηθήτω ἡ τεάπεξα αὐτῶν εἰς παγίδα κτλ. O7ea is equivalent to πα- 
yis, and is to be found neither in the LX X. nor in the Hebrew. “ May 
their table be a snare,”’ the Psalmist says, in grder to express that 
dangers should overwhelm them where they least expect it. Me- 
lancthon: Significat mensa hoc ipsum in quo acquiescunt homines, 
quod videtur afferre consolationem. Ita Judzis lex et prasens po- 
litia et ille gloriosissimus titulus populi Dei erat mensa. The other 
hemistich runs in Hebrew: wpy4 ὉΔῚ Ὑ2) “Ὁ to them at rest for a fall.” 
The LXX. read om, retribution. So likewise Paul. Σ χαάνδαλον 
means here a snare, as it elsewhere does. 


374 CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 10, 11. 


V. 10. The several images of ruin are to be regarded merely as 
poetical. ‘The poet mentions the painful consequences of old age, 
dimness of sight and a bent back. 


PA RY TE 
LET NOT THE HEATHEN EXULT OVER ISRAEL’S FALL. ΨΥ. 11—25. 


V.11. The Apostle felt the necessity of exhorting the Gentile 
Christians to humility, and warning them against a self-righteous 
hauteur over the rebellious people of God, their elder brother. He 
does 80, and paves the way to the subject by once more showing, 
even in the mournful fact of Israel’s obstinacy, the noble manifesta- 
tion of the wisdom, omnipotence and mercy of God, which from all 
evil and human transgression, makes glory be educed. _ Chrysostom: 
Σκόπευ τὴν σύνεσιν τὴν Παύλον. τὴν μὲν xarnyoevay and τῶν προφητῶν 
εἰσήγαγε» τὴν δε παξαμυθίαν nae’ ἑαυτοῦ τίθησιν. ὅτι μὲν yae αὑτοὺς 
ἡμάρτηται μεγάλα, φησίν, οὐδεὶς ἀντεξεὺ. δωμεν δὲ εἰ τοιοῦτον τὸ πτὼ- 
HO, ὡς καὶ ἀνίατον εἶναι» καὶ μηδεμίαν & ἔχειν διόφθωσιν.- ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι του- 
ovroy. εἶδες πὼς αὐτῶν πάλιν καθάπτεται; καὶ ἐν πιξοόδδοχίῳ παξαμυθίας 
ὑπευθύνους ποιεῦ ἁμαξτημάτων ὡμολογημένων; Τίς οὖν ἣ παξαμυθία; ὅταν 
δὲ τὸ πλήξωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐσέλθῃ, φησὶ, τότε πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται κατὰ 
τὸν καιξὸν τῆς συντελείας. ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως μὲν τοῦτο οὐ λέγει. ἐπειδὴ δὲ 
opodgus αὐτῶν χκατέδξἝαμε, χαὺ κατηγορίας συνήψε͵ κατηγοξίαις» 7 πξοφήτας 
ἐπὶ προφήταις εἰσάγων καταβοῶντας αὐτῶν; τὸν Hoatays τὸν ᾿Ἦλίαν, τὸν 
Muioéoa, τὸν Aavid, τὸν Ὡσηὲ, καὶ ἅπαξ, καὶ dvs, χαὶ πολλάκις», ἵνα μὴ 
ταύτη καὶ τούτους εἰς ἀπόγνωσιν ἐμβαλὼν, ἀποτειχίσῃ τὴν πρὸς τὴν πίστιν 
ἐπάνοδον, xou τους ἐξ ἐθνῶν παλιν πιστεύσαντας els ἀπόνοιαν ἐπάρῃ καὶ 
Φυσηθέντες δὲ αὐτοὶ βλαβῶσιν εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως λόγον, παξαμυθειται πά- 
λιν αὐτοὺς λέγων, ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν παξαπτώμοατι ἧ σωτηξία τῶν ἐθνῶν. Ἐ΄ 
Clarius: Miras hic divinus vir consolandi vias excogitat. 


* Mark the wisdom of Paul. He had introduced the accusation on the au- 
thority of the prophets, he gives the consolation from himself. For that they 
have committed great sins, says he, none will deny. Let us see, however, if 
the fall has been such ag to admit of no remedy and no reparation. That is 
by no means the case. Thus you see how he aims a blow at them again, 
and in the prospect of the consolation, makes them responsible for the sins 
confessed. What then is the consolation? “When the fulness of the Gen- 
tiles shall have come in,” he says, “then shall all Israel be saved,” at the 
time of the consummation. He does, not, however, at once say this. Butas 
he had greatly run them down, and strung accusation upon accusation, 
bringing forward prophet after prophet crying out against them, Isaiah and 
Elias and Moses and David and Hosea, and that not once nor twice, but fre- 


CHAPTER 1x. v. 11, 12. 379 


μὴ ἔπταισαν, ἵνα πέσωσι. τιταΐω is the figurative expression for 
being stopped in one’s course, and hence for the scandal which the 
Jews took at Christ. The ἕνα πέσωσι has been explained by ex- 
positors ina twofold way. The Vulgate, Origen, Pelagius, Gicu- 
menius, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Michaelis and others take iva as 
synonymous with ὥστε and πίπτειν in the emphatic sense, fo con- 
tinue fallen, to fall for ever. Stolz even translates, “" that they may 
mortally fall.”’ In support of this meaning, Grotius appeals to Rev. 
xviii. ὦ. Erasmus paraphrases: Num ita lapsi sunt ut prorsus con- 
ciderint, nulla resurgendi spe reliqua? Photius: τὸ xracopa αὑτῶν 
ODYL εἰς κατάπτωσιν τελείαν γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ» μόνόν ὑπεσχελίσθησαν. Still, 
although it cannot be denied that, according to this explanation, the 
question would be appropriately connected with the preceding con- 
text, it is yet somewhat forced to take πίπτειν in that emphatic mean- 
ing, nor can it be demonstrated that it ever is so used. Moreover, 
the answer, which immediately follows the question, does not apply 
to that when so expounded. It is hence preferable to suppose, that 
in these words Paul means to state, not so much the magnitude, as 
the consequences of the fall. He wants to demonstrate, That this 
very rebellious unbelief has been turned by God to a happy end. 
Thus even Augustine: Non ita deliquerunt ut caderent, 7. e. ut tan- 
tummodo caderent, quasi ad penam suam solam, and in like manner 
Pet. Martyr, Turretin and others. 

ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν naganrauate xtra. This is the glorious conse- 
quence which the divine wisdom educed from the obstinacy of the 
Jews (Acts xiii. 46). Even Christ himself had predicted the trans- 
ference of salvation from the rebellious Israelites to the Heathen, 
Matt. xxi. 43. Chrysostom adduces Matt. xxii. 9. As those that 
were bidden were not worthy, the Lord caused others to be invited. 
It is even a doctrine of Jewish Theologians, that if Israel sins, God 
transfers his benediction to the Gentiles. Soon Ps. xxv. in Midrasch 
Tehillim. 

παράπτωμα has here a more comprehensive sense than in the pure 
Greek. In the LXX. also it is the translation of pw) and Syn. 

εἰς τὸ παραξηλῶσαν αὐτούς. In this way, even in the days of Moses, 
God had wished, by tokens of love towards the Canaanites, to stir 
the people up to jealousy, Deut. xxii. 21. Calvin: Sicuti uxorema 
marito sua culpa rejectam accendit emulatio, ut se reconciliare stu- 
deat, ita nune fieri posse dicit, ut Judai, quum viderint Gentes in 
locum suum subrogatas, repudii sui dolore tacti ad reconciliationem 
aspirent. ᾿ 
»  Y.12. Paul now endeavours, by this very consideration of Israel’s 


quently, lest in this way he might plunge them in despair, and obstruct their 
return to the faith; and, on the other hand, lest he might lift the believers 
from among the Gentiles into arrogance, and by pufling up, injure them in the 
article of their faith, he again consoles the Jews, saying, that by their fall, 
salvation is come to the Gentiles. , 


376 CHAPTER XI. v. 12. 


fall, to dispose the Israelites for the truth, showing,as he does, that 
since even their fall had proved a blessing, a still more glorious des- 
tiny awaited them in the event of their conversion. Calvin: Est 
enim illud contra naturam factum, hoc nature ordine fieret. Theo- 
doret: Ei yae τῶν πλειόνων ἀπιστησάντων, οἱ ἐξ αὐτῶν πεπιστευκότες τοὺς 
ἔθνεσι τῆς θεογνωσίας τὸν πλοῦτον προσήνεγκαν, δηλονότι πάντες πιστεὺ- 
σώπα ἘΞ μειζόνων ἀγαθῶν πᾶσιν ἀνθξώποις ἐγένοντο ἂν πρόξενοι. ῥᾷον yae 
ἐπίστευον πάντες, οὐκέτι τούτων ἀντιλεγοντων; ἀλλὰ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν 
xnevtrovrav.* Bengel: Ubi multi semina eorum, major proventus. 
πλοῦτος xoouov.e Τίλοῦτος per met. adjuncti, beatitude, as Heb. xi. 
26. Κόσμος is here to be taken in the more special sense of the 
Heathen world. See one. iii. '7; it stands parallel with ἐθνῶν. It is 
particularly difficult to determine the meaning of ἥττημα and πλήφωμὸ; 
and the chief reason is, because the signification of both words is 
almost equally vague, and yet the explanation of the one necessarily 
decides that of the otheryas they are mutually contrasted. Of the 
two, the meaning of πλήφωμα can be most certainly fixed, and conse- 
quently with it we begin. In ver. 25, the πλήξωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν is spoken 
of. Now, there it signifies the great bulk, a signification which can 
be fully demonstrated. Πλήξωμα Means x90, the multitude, fulness, 
John i, 16; Eph. iii. 19; Rom. xv. 29. Specially, too, the ἰβγεδξ 
number. ‘Thus, in Gen. xlviii. 19, the LXX. render oy NOD by 
πλῆθος ἐθνῶν. In that sense, among the Fathers, we meet πλήξωμα 
Ins ἐκκλησίας. See Suicer, Thes. T. II. s. hh. v. Nay, even in the 
Greek usus loquendi, this active signification is to be found; for 
among the Classics, πλήφωμα is used to signify “the crew of a 
vessel, passengers, seamen;’’ see Schweighauser, Lex. ad Polyb. and 
Reiske, Index Grac. ad Demosth. 5. h. v. In later authors, we also 
find the expression wajeaua 775 πόλεως for ‘ the entire population of 
the city.”” So in Aristides in the Orat. περὶ ov μὴ δεῖν κωμῳδεῖν» P 
282, ed. Canter: παύδας, γυναῖκας καὶ πάν7α 7a 74s πόλεως πληφξώμαϊα. 
In the Sing. in Liban. Orat. ed. Reiske, T. I. p.301. Accordingly, 
it would be very probable, that wajeoua is here equivalent to πᾶς 
Ἰσραὴλ in ver. 26. Now, for the contrast’s sake, 777yu0 would re- 
quire to stand in the sense, the small number. It would then answer 
to the ἀπὸ μέρες in ver. 25, and to the χαγάλειμμα inc. ix. 27. ‘Thus 
do Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Grotius and others conceive 
the words. Erasmus: Quod si lapsus illorum per oceasionem sic 
profuit, ut Judzorum defectio non solum nihil attulerit dispendii, sed 
fides in multo plures sit propagata, dum, paucis deficientibus, ad 
omnes derivatum est evangelium, et unius gentis jactura tot nationes 
lucrifecerit Christo, quanto magis ditabitur mundus, cum vestra pie- 


* For if, whilst the majority disbelieved, such of them as did believe, con- 
veyed to the Gentiles the riches of the knowledge of God, it is clear, that sup- 
posing all to have believed, they would have. become the authors of still 
greater blessings to the whole human race. Yor all would have more readily 
relieved, if they, i in place of denying, had preached the truth along with us. 


CHAPTER XP verre: 377 


tate provocata, jam et ea natio ceteris adjungetur? The sense is one 
that may well be taken. ‘There is somewhat, however, to be said 
against it. In the first place, it would not fit the place in Paul’s 
train of argument, were he to say, ‘The small number, viz. of be- 
lieving Jews, has profited the heathen, how much more shall the 
great bulk.’? He should rather have said, “The great number of 
Jews cast away, has been of advantage, how much more will the 
great number of those received?’’ It is further to be observed, that 
we expect a kindred word to be joined with ragax7oua, and not one 
of an entirely different signification. If these objections, however, 
be of less weight, the following is of so much the more, viz., ‘That 
the usage of ἡγήημα can scarcely be defended, when understood to 
mean the small number. ‘Two considerations only can be urged in 
its favour, First, that ἐλάγζωμα signifies the state of diminution, and 
so might 777qua in like manner mean the minor number. Again 
that, Is. xxxi. 8, 477jua seems to bear this meaning in the LXX. 
But, although defended by Déderlein at that passage, it ought not to 
be embraced. The εἰς #77qua is there translation of the Hebrew 00%. 
If the LXX. translated that word, for melting, for the melted num- 
ber, they might doubtless use 7777uo in the sense, “ὁ small number.” 
But whether they translated on, melted number, or for vassalage, 
it is more probable that they took εἰς 777yuo in the sense, into an in- 
ferior condition, may they become prisoners of war. Besides it is 
strange that no translation of the New Testament takes ἥττημα in the 
sense melted number. What other meaning, then, remains for ἡττη- 
po? ‘The customary significations of it, which are partly resolvable 
the one into the other, are, 1. Harm, 2. Defeat, 3. Needy condition, 
4.'Transgression. The first is adopted by Origen, Ambrose, Luther, 
Limborch, Bolten and others. By harm they understand the loss 
of their dignity as covenant people. ‘The second meaning is em- 
braced by Weller, Calov and Heumann; as the Israelites have been 
discomfited in the contest with their own unbelief. 'The third is ad- 
vocated by Photius, Calvin and Wahl. The Ethiopic translator has 
introduced the fourth into the Polygl. According to the sense which 
the Syriac and Arabic connect with the meaning harm, the former 
translates * condemnation,” the latter, **rwin.’’? If, however, re- 
versing the order, the meaning of xajeauo is to be determined by that 
of ἥττημα, it might, to answer the first sense of ἥττημα, Mean com- 
pletion, exaltation, agreeably to the third, the state of perfect wel- 
fare, and agreeably to the fourth, legal perfection. In point of fact, 
any of these three meanings of πλήφωμα may be vindicated. In the 
same way we find classical authors contrast μειονέχτημα and πλεονέχ- 
τήμα. ‘To us, however, the fourth construction put upon ἥττημα, 
which, in truth is involved in the third, and partly also in the first, 
appears the most suitable. Ἥτημα occurs in the New Testament, 
1 Cor. vi. 7, in the sense of ““ἃ depraved moral state,”’ according 
to which the orthodox moralists, in reference to the adiaphora, 
48 


378 CHAPTER XI. v. 12, 13, 14. 


founded the distinction betwixt ἥττημα and ἁμάρτημα. TWajeouo 
means “the perfect fulfilment (of the law), Rom. xiii. 10, and so 
may well denote the legal condition. The Ethiopic gives the cir- 
cumlocution, ‘*when they shall be made righteous.”’ By this ex- 
planation we have the advantage that the ἥττημα perfectly answers 
to the παξάπτωμα and warewua to both of these words. τταράπτωμα and 
ἥττημα are equivalent to the ἀποβολὴ in ver. 15, and πλήφωμα to the 
πρόληψις there. We shall only further incidentally notice the in- 
genious explanation of πλήφωμα in Origen. He says: The heavenly 
economy upon earth, shall first be completed when the Jews shall 
likewise have been converted. ‘They are the complementum of all;” 
then follows the resurrection; according to which τὸ πλήφωμα αὐτῶν 
means “the completion of the kingdom of God proceeding from 
them.” 

V. 13. The design of Paul to guard the Gentiles, against haughty 
exultation over the people of Israel, now emerges more prominently. 
He goes so far as to profess, that in his most zealous endeavours to 
lead the heathen to Christ, he had still his eye directed towards the 
ancient people of God, expecting that the conversion of the heathen 
would provoke some of them to emulation. Ambrose: Ostendit gen- 
tibus quo affectu diligat Judeos. Nam ministerium suum, quo 
Apostolus gentium est, honorificat, si propter affectum generis sui 
data opera etiam Judzos acquirat ad fidem. 

ὑμῖν γὰρ κτλ.» Stands partly in antithesis to what went before, and 
was simultaneously aimed at the awakening of the Jews. 

ἐφ᾽ ὅσον δοξάζω. The ἐφ᾽ ὅσον is falsely translated by the Vulgate, 
quamdiu. Here, more correctly, as Erasmus has amended it, qua- 
tenus. ‘The Apostle wants to prevent the Gentile, from insinuating 
in proof of his being no friend of the Jews, that he cares only for the 
conversion of the heathen. For this reason he here describes him- 
self in the character to which he had actually been called by the 
Lord, ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. Acts xxii. 21, and yet he says, never do I lose 
sight of the sacred people. 

διακονίαν δοξάδειν admits a twofold exposition. The verb, accord- 
ing to its customary meaning. may signify to praise, extol; so Heu- 
menius, Luther, Heumann, Michaelis and many others. ‘The sense 
would then be, “ While I congratulate myself in being the Apostle 
of the Gentiles, some Jews may, perchance, be excited to a laudable 
emulation.”’ The other signification of δοξάδειν is, however, the 
more suitable, to magnify, ὁ. 6. practically. In this way it is taken 
by the majority of both ancients and moderns, and then the sense is, 
*T call forth all my powers to convert as many as possible of the 
Gentiles,” Gal. 1. 8. Theodoret: τὴν σωτηξίαν τῶν ἐθνῶν πραγμα- 
“εύομαιυ. 

Ὗ. 14. εἴπως for ἵνα, εἰ δυνατόν. Σώσω τινὰς» VIZ. by the preaching 
of the gospel, 1 Cor. vil. 16. Ἢ σὰεξ, abst. pro cone. for οὗ ἀδελφοὶ 
xara τὴν σάρχα. Gen. xxix. 14, and elsewhere, also “wa for ‘* my 
relative.” 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 15. 379 


V. 15. Once more the Apostle shows the mighty effects which 
the conversion of Israel will produce, as he had already done at v. 
12, justifying, in that way, the greatness of his zeal for the people of 
God. Chrysostom: ἀλλὰ xa τοῦτο αὐτοὺς καταδικάζει πάλιν, εἴ γε 
ἄλλου μὲν Ex τὼν ἁμαρτημάτων αὐτὼν txéedavor, οὗτου δὲ οὐδὲ ix τῶν ἑτέ- 
Gav κατοξθωμάτων ὠφελήθησαν. εἰ δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἐνάγχης συμβὰν, τοῦτο ἐκεύ- 
you εἶναί φησι, μὴ θαυμάσης" ἵνα γὰρ καὶ τούτους καταστείλῃ: κἀκείνους 
neoreédy, οὕτω σχηματίζει τὸν λόγον. ἢ 

εἰ yde ἡ ἀποβοχὴ αὐτὼν χτλ. ᾿Αποβάλλειν iS equivalent 10 ἀπωθεῖν. 
In the LXX. ἀπόβλητος stands for NID. Καταλλαγή per met. effec. 
pro causa. Tis ἡ πεόσληψις xtra. Πεόσληψις, gracious reception. 
The ζωή ἐκ vexecv has been very variously interpreted. The chief 
difference consists in the majority of the ancients taking the expres- 
sion corporeally, and the moderns spiritually. ‘Theodoret: εἰ yde 
τούτων ἀπιςζησάντων, προσελήφθη τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ τῆς πξοτέρας ἀγνοίας ἤλευθε- 
e00y, δῆλον ὡς εὖ πάντες οὗτοι πιστεῦσαι θελήσαιεν, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ὑπολείπε- 
ται, ἢ τὸ γενέσθαι τῶν νεχρὼν τὴν ἀνάστασιν. τοῦτο δὲ xat ὁ xbELos ἔφη» 
(Matt. xxiv. 14.) χηξυχθήσεταν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο 7ης βασιλείας εἰς 
πάντα 7ὰ ἔθνη εἰς μαφτύξιον αὐτοῖς καὶ 767ε Hee 70 7έλος. So Origen, 
Chrysostom, Anselm, Erasmus, Baumgarten and others. One cir- 
cumstance, urged particularly by Origen, is favourable to this inter- 
pretation; it is, that there then arises a very important heightening of 
the χααλλαγή. Wemay now inquire, whether it is favoured by the 
connection, by doctrinal analogy, and by the usus loquendi. The 
connection is doubtless not against it. Paul might well have de- 
signed to say, that the kingdom of God reaches its final completion 
with the conversion of the Jews, which event is then to be attended 
by the second zagovora of the Lord, and the resurrection of the dead. 
Moreover, according to the 32d verse of the chapter before us, one 
might believe, that with the conversion of the Jews as a nation, the 
course of the world is to be terminated. ‘This explanation receives 
countenance, both from the Jewish and Christian systems of doctrine. 
If we choose to take the ἀνγίχεισος of John, and even the ἀνγιχείμενος» 
(2 Thess. ii. 4,) of Paul, as a collective conception, (see Liicke 
Comm. zu d. Br. Joh. 5. 145,) it involves the idea, that, prior to the 
coming of Christ’s perfected kingdom, the anti-Christian principle 
would manifest itself in a powerful manner. Thus, even the pro- 
phets had declared, that prior to the establishment of the Messias’ 
kingdom, a bitter struggle with the enemies of the external theocracy 


* But even this again condemns them, that while others profited by their 
sins, they were nothing bettered by the right conduct of those others. Butdo 
not be surprised at his attributing to them what arose from necessity, for he 
so manages his discourse that he may humble the one and encourage the 
other. 

{ For, if whilst they disbelieved, the Gentiles were adopted and delivered 
from their former ignorance, it is clear that if they all had chosen to believe, 
nothing else could happen but the resurrection of the dead. This also the 
Lord said, (Matt. xxiv. 14): “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached 
to all nations, for a witness to them, and then shall the end come.” 


380 CHAPTER XI. v. 15. 


must take place. The same idea also lies at the basis of what Eze- 
kiel says of the war with Gog and Magog. Comprehensively viewed, 
the hostility of the Jews to the gospel belonged no less to that anti- 
Christian principle. Let that hostility be but subdued, and the intro- 
duction of the Messias’ kingdom in completion, might be expected. 
If, however, we consider the usus loquendi, the adoption of that sense 
οἵ ζωὴ ἐκ Τῶν vexeav appears less allowable. We should first have to 
suppose, that ζωὴ stands for ζωοπουήσις, and then to prove the usus 
loquendi, by which ζωοποίησιυς, just as ἀνάσγασις; is united with tx 7ὼν 
vexeav, Which preposition can properly only be joined with dywe7nu. 
The proof of these two points, however, lies in the @ar7es tx vexeav, 
6. vi. 13; on which expression we must yet observe, that St. Paul 
would not have chosen it, had he not intended to use it figuratively. 
It is a weightier objection, that if he had understood it to mean the 
resurrection, the δωὴ could scarcely have wanted the article. In 
general, indeed, there being nothing else to explain the unusual ex- 
pression, this is just the passage in which one would have expected 
a more common word for a doctrine so well known. Moreover, no 
Eastern translator takes the words in the proper sense. Hence, 
although much may be said for that, we side with those who under- 
stand it differently. ‘They who advocate the figurative meaning, 
deviate again from each other. Some consider the phrase a tropical 
designation of a mutual commerce betwixt Israel and the heathen, in 
a walk of holiness. So Pelagius, Calvin, Calov, Heumann. This 
figurative conception may certainly be vindicated by the usus loquendi 
of the New Testament, (Eph. ii. 1, 5, and especially Rom. vi. 13.) 
In the first place, however, it is erroneous in these expositors to ex- 
tend the spiritual ϑωοποίησις to the Jews. The Apostle treats solely 
of the influence the conversion of the Jews is to have upon the 
Heathen world. Moreover, if ξφωὴ tx 7ῶν νεκρῶν applies to the 
Heathen, it is no heightening of the χαγαλλαγὴ spoken of in the pre- 
vious member of the verse. Perhaps their opinion comes nearest 
the truth, who take the expression proverbially. ‘Turretin: Quid erit 
admissio eorum nisi quoddam genus resurrectionis. In Ezek. xxxvii., 
the resurrection had been employed as the image of a total revolution 
and amelioration of things. ‘The Arabians say proverbially of great 
convulsions and shocks—* as if the resurrection day were come.” 
In the Methnewi, Th. I. p. 124, Cod. Ms. Berol., it is said of a 
harper, ‘‘ By means of his tones, a resurrection took place.”” The 
same work, Th. viii. s. 148, ‘* When Dakuki beheld that resurrection, 
(the calamity spoken of is a shipwreck. )’’ Such an antithesis of life 
and death, usual as a proverb, seems also to lie at the basis of the 
question, Luke xxiv. 5. The later Jews were likewise wont to say 
proverbially of a matter which would never alter, “So will it continue 
until the resurrection from the dead,”’ as it were, ‘ until the day when 
in the mighty convulsion all may be changed.” ‘Thus, it is stated in 
the Targum, of Lot’s wife, when changed into a pillar of salt, Gen. 
xxv. 34: ‘So will she remain, till the time when in the resurrection, 
the dead shall live.’ Although, then, by the expression ζωὴ ἐκ ve- 


’ CHAPTER XI. v. 15, 16. 381 


κρῶν, the resurrection is, in point of fact, intended, it is so not di- 
rectly, but indirectly. Beza: De resurrectione proprie non loquitur 
Apostolus hoe in loco, verum proverbiali quadam dicendi figura fore 
dicit, ut quum ad evangelium accesserint etiam Judei, mundus quasi 
reviviscat. With the same generality, but yet too near its proper 
sense, the expression is taken by Bengel: Sermo est de vivificatione 
totius, ut non sit residua massa mortua. ‘'Totius generis humani sive 
mundi conversio comitabitur conversionem Israelis. In the like pro- 
verbial way, but arbitrarily giving it a special limitation, Grotius and 
Zeger take the expression, interpreting it, summum gaudium. 

V. 16. ‘The Apostle shows how the theocratical people, as 
such, possess, once for all, a high importance in the history of 
mankind, an importance which is not done away by the fact, that 
a large proportion of them disbelieved. ’Azwaeyy and ῥίζα, on the 
one hand, and on the other @veaua and xaddo, intimate the same 
thing, only in different images. As there are two species of first- 
fruits, the two words ἀπαεχὴ and φύξαμα are explained in a two- 
fold way. ‘There are, to wit, first-fruits, which consisted in coarse 
natural productions, in the state in which they had just been reaped; 
these first fruits were called NWN DI. There were also, how- 
ever, others which were usually brought from the earliest gathered 
produce, after it had been prepared; these were called nian WweN. 
Both are mentioned together at Neh. x. 36—38. Now several ex- 
positors believe that the former are here meant, viz. Grotius, Bolten,’ 
Rosenmiiller. But this will not do, for the corresponding word 
pveoua would not suit it. In a way altogether forced, they will have 
that interpreted, “heap of the earliest reapings.”” We have much 
rather to understand the second sort of first fruits, which in the LXX., 
Deut. xv. 20, are likewise called dwagyy φυξάματος, in the Hebrew 
mony mvs. If from them the first is given to God, the whole resi- 
duary mass is thereby declared legal. Now that the Apostle means, 
under the ἀπαεχὴν the patriarchs, can scarcely admit of doubt, espe- 
cially when we compare the ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέξας in Ver. 28. So 
Chrysostom, Theodoret and the majority of others. On the con- 
trary, Pelagius, Ambrose, Anselm, Carpzov and Ammon, insist that 
the ἀπαρχὴ is the Apostles or early Christians, according to Rom. 
viii. 93, ‘This view, however, when considered from various sides, 
appears altogether inappropriate. ‘The ἅγιος, if to be here referred 
to the Jewish nation as a whole, must not certainly be considered as 
a predicate, in a moral point of view, but, like the Hebrew wip, | 
merely denotes ** something separated from common use.”’ And in- 
deed it does not here serve to characterize the persons who are the 
subjects of the comparison, but the things to which they are com- 
pared. Applied to the persons, it denotes, accordingly, that they 
stand under the peculiar guidance of God, are distinguished above 
all others. ‘The second image, borrowed from the root and branches, 
intimates the same thing. 


382 CHAPTER XI. Vv. 17. 


V.17. By what he now says, the Apostle means to show, in what 
way the heathen properly have attained to be held worthy of enter- 
ing into the kingdom of God. He here again declares, as he also 
does in certain other passages, (e. g. Eph. 11. 123 iii. 6.) the lofty 
destination of the Israelitish theocracy, showing that the Jewish — 
people are, as it were, the divine canal pervading the whole human 
race, and from which all who desire to enjoy divine illumination, 
must derive its vital stream. By Christianity, he says, Judaism is 
not properly done away: that was rather the veil by which Chris- 
tianity was once concealed. So little then ought the Gentile to look 
down upon the Jew, as the follower of a false religion, that he must 
rather regard him as one belonging to the true religion, but who 
does not appreciate that as he ought, and so is in error regarding his 
own faith. On the contrary, the Gentile, instructed in Christianity, 
becomes thereby a true Jew. Such a view of the matter, will have 
the effect, that every Gentile convert, on beholding a Jew, will im- 
mediately call to mind, on the one hand, how greatly the children of 
the house are to be pitied, who having no esteem for the treasure 
that was put into their hands, permitted strangers to enter in, and, on 
the other hand, that the Gentiles hold‘ all that they have in Christ, 
only as a gift of grace. ‘The Apostle here makes use of a figure 
which has something striking. He compares the Jewish theocracy 
to a good olive tree, the Gentiles to a wild one, of which a branch is 
engrafted upon the former, and which by that means acquires fruitful- 
ness. Now, the singularity, as Pelagius observed, consists in this, 
that the wild branch is improved by this generous stock, whereas it 
is always the case that the engraft changes the juices of the stock. 
It might just be said, that Paul does not borrow the image from 
what usually does, but from what might take place, inasmuch as 
one would expect, that as the stomach conveys vital nourishment 
to all parts of the body, the root would do the same to the stock. 
In this way expositors generally take it up. Still the amelio- 
ration of branches of the wild olive, by implantation into the gene- 
rous one, may be something not so rare. ‘Two passages from the 
ancients, Columella, de re Rustica, l. v. 6. 9, and Palladius, de re 
Rustica, |. xiv. c. 53, and 54, testify that twigs of the wild olive have 
such an effect upon a dry generous one, that it again grows green, 
and nourishes the wild olive branches, so that these become of a 
generous quality. And Stephen Schulz, in his beautiful work, Lei- 
tungen des Héchsten, ‘Th. v.s. 88, observes that at Jerusalem many 
people assured him, it was a frequent practice to engraft twigs of the 
wild into the generous olive tree, in order to make the latter green. 
The reason why Paul chooses the olive tree for a comparison is be- 
cause it is likewise beautiful and prolific, Ps. lil. 10. Compare on 
the subject Wetstein. Chrysostom: Σὺ δέ μου σχόπει αὐτοῦ τὴν σοφίαν» 
πὼς δοχὼν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν λέγειν, καὶ παξαμυθίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπινοεῖν, πλήττευ 
λανθανόντως,) καὶ πάσης ἀπολογίας δείχνυσιν ἐστεφημένους, ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης» 


CHAPTER XI. ν. 17,18, 19. 383 


ἀπὸ τῆς ἀπαρχῆς. ἐννόησον yae πονηφίαν τῶν κλάδων, ὅτυ μήδὲ ῥὶζαν ἔχον- 
τες γλυκεῖαν, μιμοῦνταν αὐτήν. ἢ 

τινὲς τῶν κλάδων, per charientismum as 6. iil. 8. 

ἀγξιέχαιος, is the wild olive tree, which commonly over the East is 
likewise very prolific, only the fruit is not fit for use. ‘There is, 
however, a particular species of it, called Kotinos or Agrippas, dis- 
tinguished by definite characters, which is altogether barren. Hence 
in Greek, the proverbs, ἀχαφπότεξος ayecnnov. But it is unlikely 
that the Apostle speaks of this species. ‘he ἐν before αὐτοῖς is pleo- 
nastic. 

τῆς ῥίζης καὶ τῆς πιότητος, iS Hendiadis for τῆς ῥίζης τῆς πίονος. As 
illustration of this saying of Paul’s, the passage from the book Sohar 
may serve, Amst. ed. P. ii. f. 51, which is also to be found in Som- 
meri, Theol. Soharica, p. 32, and whose meaning is as follows: 
“ God has his holy temple in heaven, but thither we cannot go, with- 
out having first been with the Matronita. She is the mediatrix from 
below upwards, and from above downwards. All has been put into 
her hands. She manages the cause of God. ‘This matronita now 
is the protectress of Israel, for he said, All Gentiles are to the con- 
gregation of Israel, as nothing. She is my dear dove, what shall] I 
do to her, but commit my whole house into her hands.”’ (This pass- 
age is still further remarkable for its coincidence with Pseudo Esra. 
B. 4, c. 5, 26. Ex omnibus creatis volucribus unam {101 nominasti 
columbam, probably after the Song of Solomon ii. 14.) In virtue of ᾿ 
the circumstance that Israel stands under the Metraton, that nation, 
according to the opinion of the author, is also the mediator betwixt 
God and men, the owner of all the treasures of divine revelation. 
And in a certain respect Paul agrees with him. Κατακαυχᾶσθαυ τινος 
means, ‘10 uplift oneself, and treat another with contempt.” 

V. 18. Calvin: Non possunt contendere gentes cum Judzis de 
generis Sui prestantia, quin certamen cum ipso Abrahamo suscipiant, 
quod esset nimis improbum, cum ille sit instar radicis, a qua feruntur. 
The Gentile did not form the kingdom of Christ; its foundation- 
stone lies in the Israelitish Theocracy, and had not the Gentiles 
been able to build upon that, no kingdom of Christ would have 
risen. 

V.19. The Gentile might object that the relation which had pre- 
viously obtained betwixt God and Israel, had been abolished by God 
himself, that the Jews had been declared to have forfeited their dig- 
nity as the covenant people, in order that the heathen might succeed 
to their place as such. Pertinently Pelagius: Tu dices ideo illos 
fractos ut tu inseraris; videamus si propterea et non magis prepter 
incredulitatem suam. Correctly also Limborch: Ethnico-Christianus 


* But mark his wisdom, how, whilst he appears to speak in their behalf, 
and to intend encouraging them, he gives them a secret blow, and shows 
that they are altogether inexcusable, from the root, from the first fruits. For 
conceive the badness of the branches, that not having a sweet root, they 
imitate 1t. 


384 CHAPTER XI. V. 20, 21, 22. 


ait: Verum quidem est me non portare radicem sed radicem me, atque 
adeo me contra radicem gloriari minime posse, at ego non glorior 
contra radicem sed contra ramos defractos—Codd. A C F G, 3, 7, 
37,46, 47,54. Chrysostom and Damascenus omit the article before 
κλάδοι. 

V.20. Paul refutes the evasion, with the remark, that God had not on 
his part changed the relation in which he previously stood to Israel. 
It is his will still to acknowledge them as covenant people, only they 
do not fulfil the conditions on which he can do so. ‘The χαλῶς, which 
elsewhere denotes direct approval, is here followed by a limitation. 
The datives τῇ πίστει and τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ have the sense of ablatives. 
στάναυ, is the emphatic signification, to stand fast. 1 Cor. x. 12. 
“ἡ ψηλοφεονεὺν not merely signifies “to esteem oneself above others, 
but to esteem oneself higher than one really is.”’ ‘The Apostle re- 
quires true self-knowledge. This will beget an apprehension of the 
possibility of falling by unbelief, and from thence will flow compassion 
for the Jews, who fell from that cause. 

V.21. The Gentile Christian has a twofold ground for living in 
fear. Not only may he, as well as the Jew, fall into unbelief, but, 
supposing him to do so, he has so much the more reason to dread 
the divine judgment, that God has so severely punished the unbelief 
of the original covenant people. The fut. indic. φείσεταν is the 
proper reading. Just as ἕνα, in place of the pres. conj., governs the 
ful. indic., both in the New Testament, and also among classical 
authors (see Viger. 5. 557), so does μήποτε likewise in the New 
Testament, Heb. iii. 12. 

V. 22. The Apostle now tells the Heathen Christians, how they 
may improve to their advantage the consideration of their own and 
the Jews’ fate. Chrysostom: Οὐ γὰρ ἀκύνητά σου μένει τὰ ἀγαθὰ; ἐὰν 
ῥαθυμῇς: ὥσπεξ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐκεύνους τὰ κακὰν ἐὰν μεταβάλωνταυ: καὶ γὰξ σὺ» 
φησὶν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐπιμείνῃς TH πίστευ ἐκκοπήσῃ.ἢ The holiness and the 
love of God are the two attributes on which his whole connection 
with men is based. ’Azorouia, even among profane authors, means 
severity, rigidness, from ἀποτέμνειν. ᾿Απότομος seyj, Book of Wisdom, 
v. 20. 

ἐὰν ἐπιμείνῃς τῇ χρηστότητι. By the addition of this conditional 
clause, the antithesis of ἀποτομία and yenororns properly is once more 
weakened. Paul, however, wished to use every argument, in order 
to keep the Gentile Christians in becoming humility. It is made a 
question, whether χρης)όγης denote the quality in man, as Clemens 
Alex. Paedag. 1. i. ὁ. 8. and Chr. Schmid maintain, or the quality in 
God. In favour of the former, the usus loquendi of the LXX. in Ps, 
xiv. 1. Rom. iii. 12, speaks, where χρησγόγης denotes a blameless. 
walk, and besides that, Paul, in the following verse, says, ἐπιμένειν 


* For the blessings now yours will not continue immovably so, if you are 
careless and indolent, just as little as their evils will to them, if they reform. 
For thou also, he says, shalt be cut off, unless thou continuest in the faith. 


CHAPTER XI. V. 22, 23, 24. 385 


Τῇ ἀπισγίᾳ. We shall be more correct, however, in regarding the 
xenolomms here as the dealing of God to man, which the latter ought 
not on his part to hinder. In several passages of the New ‘Testa- 
ment, χρησγότης stands for the ἀγάπη and χάρις of God, Rom. 11. 4. 
Tit. iii. 4. Eph. 11. 7; and were it here, by an antanaclasis, to de- 
note the human attribute, we should expect the antithesis to be inti- 
mated by a ov. ᾿Επιμένειν 7ινὺ means to persevere in any thing. 
᾿ΕἘπεὺ since, and then afterwards equivalent to <i δὲ μή. See c. ili. 6; 
xi. 6. Chrysostom: εἶδες ὅσον τῆς πἰδοαιξέσεως τὸ κῦδος; πόση τῆς γνώ- 
μῆς ἣ ἐξουσία; οὐδὲν yae τούτων ἀκίνητον; οὐτὲ τὸ σὸν καλὸν, οὔτε τὸ ἐκεί- 
ψου χαχόν. εἶδες πὼς χαὶ ἐχεῦνον ἀπογινώσκοντω ἀνέστησε; καὶ τοῦτον 
θαῤῥοῦντα κατέστευλε. ἢ 

V.23. The present exclusion of the disbelieving Jews will lay no 
obstacle in the way of their future reception. Let them but believe, 
and they may at once enter upon the enjoyment of their filial rights. 
This must certainly have been unlikely at that time, when it seemed 
as if a divine unalterable curse hung over the Jews, the infant church 
receiving augmentation from among the Gentiles, from hour to hour; 
whereas the Jews, as if smitten with blindness, burned with an ever 
hotter zeal against their salvation; at a time, moreover, when, accord- 
ing to our Lord’s prediction, the entire downfall of the external the- 
ocracy was just about to ensue. Paul, however, only speaks of 
what may take place, and does not yet venture as it were to declare 
what at that period actually shall happen. ‘This he first mentions 

_at ver. 25. 

V.24. As the Apostle had made the Gentile apprehensive, by 
leading him to draw a conclusion, ver. 21, a majore ad minus, from 
the rejection of the disbelieving Jews to that of the disbelieving Hea- 
then, he now again, in order to humble him, draws a conclusion, a 
minore ad majus, from the pardoning of the believing Heathen to 
that of the believing Jews. Chrysostom: εἰ yae τὸ raed φύσιν ἔσχυσεν 
ἡ πίστις, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ κατὰ Φύσιν.....«.παρὼ φύσιν καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ὅταν 
ἀκούσῃς αὐτοῦ συνεχὼς λέγοντος; μὴ τὴν ἀκίνητον ταύτην φύσιν νόμιζε λέγειν 
αὐτὸν, GAAG χαὺὶ τὸ εἰχὸς καὺ τὸ ἀχόλουθον, καὶ τὸ ὀπευχὸς πάλιν τούτους 
δηλοῦν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν. οὐ γὰρ φυσυκὰ τὰ χαλὰ; ἀλλὰ προαιρέσεως povns.t 


* Do you see how sovereign is the power of choice, how great the authority 
of the will! For none of these things is immovably settled, neither thy 
desirable lot nor his evil one. Do you see how he has both uplifted thé one 
in despair, and humbled the other when over-confident. 

{ For if faith can achieve that which is contrary to nature, much more can 
it achieve what is according to it...... When you thus hear him arguing of 
contrary to nature, and consistently with nature, do not suppose that he calls 
this nature unalterable; but that he manifests by these names what is proba- 
ble and likely to happen, and what unlikely; for moral good is not of nature, 
but of choice alone. 


49 


386 CHAPTER XI. Vv» 25. 


tS ie Aas i 1B 


AFTER THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES SHALL HAVE COME IN, THE 
CONVERSION OF ISRAEL AS A WHOLE WILL TAKE PLACE. V. 25— 
32. 


V.25. Paul now goes on to say, that not only does no obstacle 
exist on God’s part to the reception of the believing Israelites into:the 
kingdom, but, with an eye enlightened from above, he casts a look 
into the most distant future, in virtue of which he announces, that, 
after the conversion of the bulk of the Heathen, the Israelitish nation 
shall one day, as a whole, undergo conversion, and be received into 
the kingdom of the Saviour. Unprejudiced exposition cannot deny 
that such is the correct meaning of the passage, founded both on the 
words and on the connection. It is so interpreted by Origen, Chry- 
sostom, Augustine, De Civ. D. 1. xx. c. 29, Ambrose, Gregory the 
Great, Hom. 12. in Ezech., Theophylact, Gicumenius, ‘Thomas 
Aquinas, Erasmus, Peter Martyr, Beza, Boétius, Calixt, Hunnius, 
Baldwin, Spener, Heumann, Michaelis and Koppe. Erasmus gives 
the following excellent periphrasis of it: Incidit hee cecitas.in gen- 
tem Judaicam, sed nec in universum, nec in perpetuum. Complures 
et hinc agnoscunt Christum, et ceteri tantisper in sua eacitate per- 
sistent, donee gentium numerus fuerit expletus, quibus nune Judeo- 
rum lapsus aditum aperuit. Verum ubi viderint universum orbem 
florere professione fidei Christiane, suum illum Messiam frustra ex- 
pectari, urbem, templum, sacra, gentem dissipatam ac sparsam, inci- 
piant receptis oculis tandem errorem suum agnoscere, et intelligent 
Christum verum esse Messiam. In consequence, however, of the 
many enthusiastic spirits who appeared at the time of the Reforma- 
tion, and who heated their fancies with corporeal delineations of 
Christ’s reign upon earth, the reformers, induced by the dangers 
which thence arose to disavow generally the advent of an earthly 
kingdom of Christ, (it is on similar grounds that Jerome, ad Jes. ΧΙ. 
rejects the national conversion of the Jews, reckoning it among the 
opinions of the Judaizantes. Elsewhere, however, he embraces it, 
Jer. xvi. 15. Mat. xvii. 11,12,) were betrayed into denying along 
with it, what was wont to be regarded as a token of its approxima- 
tion, viz. a general conversion of the Jews, and in the exposition of 
this passage of the Apostle, which plainly speaks for that, were 
forced to have recourse to most artificial renderings. Other exposi- 
tors endeavoured, upon different and more rationalist grounds, to 
expound away the prophecy, because, in general, so positive a pre- 


CHAPTER XI. v. 25. 387 


diction, referring to such a specialty in a distant future, displeased 
them in the Apostle, inasmuch as—supposing it not to be a piece of 
coarse fanaticism—he could only have received it by a particular 
divine revelation. ‘The various forced expositions are as follows. 
The Lutherans commonly take up the Apostle’s declaration thus: ΤῸ 
the dyeus οὗ they give the meaning, as long as, to πλήξωμα; that of 
the great bulk, and to πὰς ᾿Ισραὴχ, that of “all spiritual Israelites, 
converted Jews as well as converted Gentiles,’’ so that the transla-— 
lation becomes, ‘ Blindness has happened to Israel in part, as long 
as the heathen shall be entering in the divine kingdom. ‘This will 
continue to the end of the world; at which period the whole spiritual 
Israel will obtain blessedness.’’ So Melancthon, Bugenhagen, Osi- 
ander, Calov. (He, however, understands was ᾿Ισεαὴν of the bodily 
Israel, in so far, to wit, as that is also spiritual, consequently of the 
called among them.) At the same time these expositors suppose, 
that Paul also intimates by the words, ἀπὸ uéeous ἡ πώρφωσις γέγονεν the 
conversion of several Jews until the end of the world. With some 
modification, the same way of viewing the passage is found in Calvin. 
He, too, understands πὰς Iceaja of the spiritual Israel; ἄχεις οὗ is to 
be explained, so that, and ἀπὸ μέξους, in a certain degree. In this 
way the translation would be: ‘To a certain degree Israel has, we 
may affirm, been blinded, so that the Gentiles, too, may come into 
the kingdom of God, and thus all belonging to the spiritual Israel 
be saved.” How forced and how feeble these explanations are, is 
at once perceived. The judicious Melancthon confesses properly, 
by his silence, that he feels it. 

nas ᾿Ισφαὴλ, which even Augustine, ep. 149, ad Paulinum, and 
Theodoret explain of the spiritual Israel, cannot possibly signify that 
here, as is certainly the case, Gal. vi. 16 { Rom. ix. 6], inasmuch as 
the word Ἰσεαήν always signified the Jews, in contrast with the 
Gentiles, and even here stands opposite πλήξωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν. More- 
over Christians, who had received grace, could never be directly 
called 6 ᾿Ισξαὴλ, without some descriptive predicate, such as πίνευμα- 
τυκὸς ΟΥ̓ the like. ‘The ayers οὗ is contrary to the usus loquendi, 
taken in the sense as long as, or even so that. (After the Hebrew 
1y, indeed the former meaning of dyecs would not be impossible. 
There are, however, no examples of it in the New Testament, and 
it is even but rarely that 1p has this meaning in the Old.) In fine, 
were the exposition we have alluded to correct, the Apostle would 
but repeat what is already implied in ver. 11, and—not to take into 
account that we do not expect such a thing—the grave introduction 
would then appear very strange, and the Apostle’s declaration, that 
he meant to disclose to his readers a μυστήξιον. Another forced ex- 
position is that to be found in Grotius, Limborch and Wetstein. 
‘They take the words πλήρωμα and πᾶς in the more lax sense of a 
considerable number, and conceive that they were fulfilled at the 
destruction of Jerusalem, inasmuch as then, after a multitude of 
Gentiles had confessed themselves Christians, a very considerable 


388 CHAPTER XI. Vv. 25. 


number of Jews might also have joined the cause. Now even, 
although one were to allow that πλήξωμα may signify ‘¢a considera- 
ble number,”’ it must still be regarded as highly unnatural to give the 
same meaning to πᾶς Ἰσεαήλ. Besides, the supposition of the con- 
version of a multitude of Jews at the capture of Jerusalem, is nothing 
more than a supposition. No historical testimony can be adduced 
in its favour. 

' We have still to notice the exposition of Carpzov and Semler, 
who suppose σωθήσεταυ to amount to as much as Sivarac σωθῆναι. In 
this case, however, the Apostle would idly repeat himself, having 
already taught the same thing in ver. 23. Besides, even allowing 
that σωθήσεταυ might signify can be saved, who could be persuaded 
that Paul would have had recourse to a citation from the Bible in 
proof of this possibility. In ver. 31 he speaks of the reception of 
Israel as of a determinate future event. Compare upon these words 
of the Apostle, Buddzus, Instit. Dog. p. 672, Spener, Appendix to 
the Pia Desideria; Geistliche Schriften, Bd. II. s. 329; Deutsche 
Theolog. Bedenken, Bd. I. 215. Calov, Commen. on the passage. 

The simple and correct exposition of the passage is as follows: 
With the formula οὐ yae θέλω ὑμᾶς dyioecv the Apostle usually begins 
sentences, which contain something striking and unexpected, Rom. 
i. 13. 1 Cor. xii. 1. 2 Cor. 1. 8. 1 ‘Thess. iv. 13. Chrysostom here 
explains μυστήξιον cor rectly: ἐνταῦθα, τὸ ἀγνοούμενον χαὺ ἀποῤῥητον 
λέγων, καὶ πολὺ μὲν τὸ θαῦμα; πολὺ δὲ τὸ παξάδοξον ἔχον. ‘The word, 
in fact, as used in Scripture, but rarely signifies what it does in eccle- 
siastical language. It is commonly applied to the Christian doctrines, 
inasmuch as prior to their revelation, they could never have been 
divined by any process of human intellect, 1 Cor. xv. 51. Eph. i. 9; 
111. 3,9. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Bengel: Mysterium fuerat vocatio gentium, 
‘nunc item mysterium est conversio Israelis. 

ἵνα μὴ ἦτε nae’ ἑαυτοῖς Φεόνιμοι. "This doctrine of the future con- 
version of the entire nation of Israel, was well calculated to cure the 
Gentiles of the delusion, that having now become the covenant peo- 
ple in place of Israel, they might ‘look down upen them as lying 
under the curse of God. Gennad. in Gicum.: τῷ γὰς ἀγνοεῖν τὴν 
ἐδίαν éxveovy βουλήν. Wherever a divine revelation is vouchsafed, 
there all the schemes of human wisdom are annihilated. As an 
ancient Greek poet says: Ta δοχηθέντ᾽ οὐκ ἐτελέσθη, τῶν δ᾽ ἀδοχήτων 
mogov εὗρεν Θεός. Φεόνιμος παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ answers to DIN 1.2}, Prov. iii. 
7. We find elsewhere in the LXX. φρόνιμος ἐν ἑαυτῷ. 

Orb πώφωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσξαὴν γέγονε. ‘The πώξωσις of the Jews 
is impressively described, 1 'Thes. ii. 15, 16. 

ἀπὸ péeovs, agreeably to the analogous classical use of xard péeous 
and μέρος τί, cannot well signify any thing else but in part. We 
find it also in Diodorus, ed. Bip. V. 445. The Apostle elsewhere, 


* Here calling that a mystery which was unknown and undivulged, con- 
taining much that was strange and contrary to expectation. 


CHAPTER XI. V. 25, 26, 27. 389 


several times, uses 2x péeovs, partially. The proposition ἀπὸ with 
substantives, forms, as is well known, adverbs in classical Greek, as 
for instance, ἀπὸ τοῦ neoparods, ἀπὸ μνήμης. The Apostle puts this 
word, like the τινές of ver. 17, again per charientismum, by far the 
greater part of the people having suffered the πώξωσις in question. It 
here stands opposed to the πὰς in ver. 26. TWanewua has the signifi- 
eation which we contended for at vey. 12. In the Hellenistic it 
meant, according to the usus loquendi, the great bulk; in the later 
Greek, the entire population. Accordingly it here also signifies 
the great mass, the totality. Hence the word comprises not every 
individual of every nation, but nations as nations. ‘The signification 
of “‘complement, viz. of the number of Apostate Jews,’’ in which 
Bengel, Gusset, Wolf and others understand it, would here be less 
appropriate. 

εὐσελθῃ SCil. εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The verbs Soy and x3 
among the Rabbins, and eicéeyecdu in the New Testament, are joined 
with several words, denoting the life eternal, the kingdom of the 
Messias. In the New Testament, ecoéeyecbou εἰς τὴν ζωήν, Matt. xviil. 
9; xix. 17. Mark ix. 43, εἰς τὴν δόξαν, Luke xxiv. 26, eis τὴν κατά- 
navow, Heb, iii. 11; xviii. 19; iv. 1, εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν ovearar, 
Mat. v. 20; vii. 21; xviii. 3; xix. 23,24. On the same phraseology 

_also rests the comparison of Christ at John x. 9, where εἰσελεύσεταυ 
stands per se. Now as this mode of expression was so customary, 
it became a practice to say εἰσελθεῦν by itself, in place of εἰσελθεῖν εἰς 
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν odeavay. So Matt. vii. 13. Luke xiii.24. Compare 
Matt. xxiii. 13. Speaking of the commencement of a new life, An- 
tonin., l. X. c. 8, also says: εὐσέρχεσθαι εἰς βίον ἕτερον. ‘The entering 
in of the πλήξωμα of the heathens is intimated by our Lord himself, 
John x. 16. 

V.26. xo οὕτω signifies as much as xai τότε Acts vii. 8; xvii. 33. 
Tas Iceaja stands opposed to the ἀπὸ μέξες» and denotes the totality 
of the Israelitish nation as such. ‘The Apostle appends a citation 
from Isaiah lix. 20, which does not altogether allude to the national 
conversion of Israel here spoken of by himself, but which will cer- 
tainly receive its proper fulfilment at that event. He seems to have 
quoted from memory. for, in place of tx Σιὼν, there stands in Hebrew, 
ΤΟΝ, and in the LXX. ἕνεχεν Σιών. He probably put tx from the 
recollection of other passages regarding the Messias, where ἐκ Σιών 
stands, as Ps. xiv. 7. In place of ῥυόμενος, there is in the Hebrew 
5x13, which is a standing name among the Rabbins for the Messias. 
The clause xai axooreéyec κτλ.» runs so likewise in the LXX., 2pyra 
»»ῶϑ "3. The Chaldaic and Arabie seem in place of ‘2v9 to have 
read 7w, 

V. 27. This passage is also quoted from memory. The first 
words are still from Is. lix. 21, those that follow from ὅταν αὐτῶν, 
from Isa. xxvii. 9. ‘The new covenant, which, at the time of the 
Messias, God shall make with Israel, will not again consist in the 
bestowal of a law, but in the forgiveness of transgression. Jer, xxxili. 


390 CHAPTER XI. V. 28, 29. 


33, 34, is a kindred passage. Ἢ nae’ ἐμοῦ διαϑήκη is, in pure Greek, 
also a periphrasis for ἡ διαϑήχη μου. 

V.28. The Apostle means further to specify in how far Israel has 
still to hope for mercy, and in how far it has been cast away. He 
accordingly shows, that God continues to hold fast his plan of 
making the members of the external theocracy, citizens of God’s 
inward kingdom, and that, in this respect, Israel will still have rea- 
son to rejoice in the divine care. ‘The Apostle sets τὸ eayyéaroy and 
ᾧ éxaoyn in opposition, as two diverse points of view, from which 
ihe divine being may contemplate the nation of the Theocracy. ‘The 
?xaoyy is here not absolute election to a participation in the gratia 
irresistibilis, as is manifest even from its opposition to “εὐαγγέλιον, but 
election to the place of outward theocratical covenant people. ‘This 
grace God had once vouchsafed to the Israelites. He aceordingly 
kept continually in view, whether they who had paved the way for 
the Christian kingdom of God, would themselves, one day, enter 
into it. Yea, as the Apostle here intimates, God beholds with par- 
ticular satisfaction, when those very persons who prepared the world 
for the Saviour, themselves embrace him. At the same time, how- 
ever, he likewise shows, how the intentions of the divine love may 
be hindered by resistance on the part of man, affirming that on 
account of their ἀπιστία, Israel is for the present rejected. This 
close connection with the foregoing context does not permit us to 
supply a μοῦ after the 2?y6eoi, as if Paul were speaking of the relation 
of the Israelites to himself, as above, c. ix. 2; xi. 13. In that case, 
too, ver. 29, which immediately follows, would not be appropriately 
connected. Much more ought we to supply the genitive Θεοῦ after 
ἐχθϑοί. Mov was supplied by Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, Camera- 
rius, Baumgarten and others. 

δὺ ὑμᾶς is appended by Paul, in order not, by this ἐχθροὺ, to afford 
the Heathen oceasion for being uplifted over the Jews. He says the 
same as in ver. 11. Augustine, ep. 149, ad Paulin. observes upon 
these words: Sicut illorum nequitiz est male uti bonis operibus ejus, 
sic illius sapientia bene uti malis operibus eorum. 

διὰ τοὺς πατέξας Stands, not in sense, but in form, parallel with δὲ 
ὑμᾶς. Augustine: Quia et quod patribus promissum erat, oportebat 
impleri. Calvin: Non quod dilectioni causam dederint, sed quoniam 
ab illis Dei gratia propagata fuerat ad posteros secundum pacti for- 
mam: Deus tuus et seminis tui. On account of the faithfulness with © 
which they surrendered themselves to his directing grace, God had 
made a covenant with the patriarchs, which formed as it were a basis 
upon which the whole economy of salvation was raised. It hence 
could not but be God’s desire, that a nation which had been favoured, 
with so peculiarly gracious a guidance, and which sprang from such 
progenitors, should not*merely in part, but as a whole, be admitted 
into his kingdom. 

V. 29. In a universal axiom, the Apostle declares why that cove- 
nant of God with the Fathers still manifests its power and blessing. 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 29, 30, 31. 391 


If God had wholly cast off Israel, when he saw that they did not re- 
ceive the Messias, this might lead to the conjecture, that he had no 
previous apprehension of their so doing, and must now experience 
the human sentiment of regret. So perfectly, however, had it been 
foreknown by him, that he had even proclaimed it by the prophets. 
Accordingly, as God nevertheless elected the Israelitish nation to be . 
his covenant people, it follows, that even now, after the ancient mem- 
bers of the Theocracy have fallen into disbelief and been excluded, 
a particular regard still continues to be due to them, as the people 
who first laid the foundation of the kingdom of Christ. The axiom, 
delivered by the Apostle against anthropopathy, is also to be found 
in Heathen authors. Xoaedouara xai ἡ χλῆσις Stands per hendiadyoin, 
the χλῆσις being just the gift which God has given to the Israelites. 
Kayocs, as formerly the ?xaoy7, must not be understood of the inward 
vocation to Christ’s kingdom by the gratia irresistibilis, but of their 
appointment as outward covenant people, which properly involved 
likewise an outward call to the gospel; and accordingly that was 
preached, in the first instance, to them. 

V. 30. Here Paul sums up what he had delivered in the preceding 
context. ‘The result is as follows: The Gentiles enter the kingdom 
of God by occasion of the unbelief of the Jews; just as the Gentiles 
were once unbelieving, so are now the Jews; but, like the Gentiles 
now, so shall the Jews one day believe. In regard to the reading, 
we have to observe, that Codd. A C Da. p. m. E FG, and the Greek 
Fathers omit χοῦ. And doubtless it appears to have been brought 
from ver. 31 into the text. The verb ἀπειθέω, as likewise its deriva- 
tives, has moreover, in the Hellenistic, the meaning of ἁπιστέω. So 
in the LXX.: Is. xxx. 12; Ecclesiasticus xli. 2. Phavorinus: ἀπιυ- 
στίαν καὶ ἀπείθειαν λέγουσι. Hesych: ἀπειθεῖ, ἀντιλέγει. In the LXX. 
it is the translation of OND and 12, which words not unfrequently 
denote a presumptuous unbelief. In classical Greek, likewise, 
ἀπειθής denotes as much as μὴ πειθόμενος, t. 6. unbelieving. ‘There 
are numerous examples of this in the New Test. The τῇ τούτων 
ἀπειθείῳ 15 Only to be understood ἀφοφμητικῶὼς. 

V. 31. We can imagine a double construction of τῷ ὑμεφτέξφῳ ξλέει. 
It might be joined to ἠπείθησαν; the comma would then come before 
iva, and the ground of the ἀπείθεια of the Jews would lie in the τῷ 
ὑμετέξῳ ἐλέει. In this case, the jealousy of the Jews at the calling 
of the Gentiles would be the ground of their rejection. So Erasmus, 
Beausobre, Baumgarten and others. But, to leave other reasons un-. 
‘ noticed, the Apostle has hitherto maintained the very opposite fact, 
viz. that the Gentiles were not called until after the Jews had de- 
spised, as we read Acts xiii. 46. Besides, the ἕνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐλ. would 
then trail very feebly behind. Luther translates, ‘*’They have not 
chosen to believe in the mercy which you have experienced.” So 
likewise the Syrian; this, however, affords no meaning. And so 
too the Vulgate; but the in vestram misericordiam of it, we may with 
many explain ἐκβατυκῶὼς" εἰς τὸ ἐλεηθῆναι ὑμᾶς. ‘The other construc- 


392 CHAPTER XI. v. 31, 32. 


tion is doubtless preferable, which places the comma after #mevonoay, 
and supposes that iva, as is often the case, comes after certain intro- 
ductory words, 1 Cor. ix. 15; 2 Cor, 11. 4; Gal. ii. 10. ‘The words 
that go before are thereby more highly intonated. The dative τῷ 
ἐλέει, accordingly, does not here express the cause, but the mode of 
the divine mercy towards Israel. 

V. 32. After having summed up, in the two previous verses, all 
he had said from ver. 11, Paul now infers the result. He points out 
what had been the real course of the divine plan of salvation in regard - 
to the whole human race. We have first to notice, respecting the 
reading, that Codices D E have τὰ πάντα, Codices F G, the Vulgate 
and the Latin fathers, πάντα. Now, one certainly might suppose 
that the masculine had only been written as a gloss beside the neuter; 
but the external authorities do not preponderate, and hence it is also 
supposable, that πάντα found its way into the margin from the kindred 
passage, Gal. ii. 22. 

συγκλείευν has here the sense of 71 1207, either 5 or Sx, which Ps. 
xxxi. 8; Ixxviii. 50, is rendered by ovyxascew. Diodorus Siculus 
uses the word in a similar way, 1. xix. c. 19; εἰς τοιαύτην ἀμηχανίαν 
συγκλεισθεὶς ᾿Αντίγονος μετεμέλετο, Where we should translate συγκλευσ- 
devs, overthrown. Accordingly, in this passage, it amounts to maga- 
διδόναι, and denotes the relation in which God stands towards those 
who strive against him, whom he resigns to their contumacy, with- 
out, however, giving up their recovery. ‘The word has the same 
meaning in the parallel passage, Gal. iii. 22, only that there the sub- 
ject is % yeapy, which in respect of sense, answers to ὃ νόμος. ‘There, 
accordingly, must συνέκλευσε be understood declaratorily (comp. Glas- 
sius Phil. Sacr. p. 789), “‘ The law convicted them all of being given 
up to sin,” just as we were wont to say, “the law condemns, visits 
with punishment,” in place of, ‘‘ declares that......””_ Compare Mat- 
thew xix.6. The Greek expositions and Scholia will have συνέχλεισε 
here also understood declaratorily, equivalent to ἤλεγξε, ἀπέδειξε. 
Pelagius: Non vi conclusit, sed ratione conclusit, quos invenit in in- 
credulitate. So likewise do most modern expositors take itup. But 
in the present passage, ὃ Θεὸς being the subject, this view is not 
natural, It is better as follows; God permitted the germ of sin to 
be developed and become manifest in the whole species, not, however, 
with the intention of giving men over to their misery, but in order 
that, when they should have learned, by being made the prey of sin, 
what a terrible thing it is, he might make known to all the way of 
salvation.”? We may apply, as illustration, what Gregory of Nyssa, 
in his Orat. de die Nat. Jesu Christi, ‘T’. Il. Opp. p.'773, and in Ep. 
ad Theophilum adv. Appollin. ib. p. 695, and what, in like manner,, 
Theodoret in Grec. affect. Curat. Sermo VI. says, in justification of 
the late appearance of Christ upon the earth. ‘The divine Being, 
they tell us, treated the human race as a patient in a fever. So long 
as the causes of the fever are yet active, so long as the virus has not 
been brought out, the physician administers no antidote. In the same 


CHAPTER XI. V. 32, 33. 393 


way, the mighty tree of sin was not assailed at the root, until after it 
had put forth allits twigs and branches. As, even after the appearing 
of the Saviour, a portion of Israel still resisted, God gave them over 
to their obstinacy, until they should be vanquished by his love, and 
so Israel at last be saved. Τοὺς πάντας means here all the masses of 
population upon the earth, as Gal. ili. 22, does τὼ πάντα also. Eras- 
mus makes a beautiful cireumlocution, expressing the connection of 
this saying with the exclamations that follow: Sic enim Deus ineffa- 
bili consilio dispensat ac temperat res humanas, ut nullum sit genus 
hominum non obnoxium peccato, non quod ille cuiquam sit auctor 
peceandi, sed quod ad tempus sinat homines suo vitio prolabi, ut, 
agnito errore, sentiat se non suo merito, sed gratuita Dei misericordia 
servatos esse, ne possint insolescere. Atque interim dum hee agit, 
adeo nemini malum.immittit, ut etiam aliena mala sua bonitate mire 
vertat in bonum nostrum. Sed altius fortassis ingredimur adytum 
hujus arcani, quam par est homini apud homines eloqui. Stupor 
aboritur contemplanti ineffabilem divini consilii rationem, et cwm ex- 
plicare nequeam, exclamare libeat, O profunditatem exuberantissime 
sapientia! &c. 


PART IV. 


THE UNFATHOMABLE WISDOM AND LOVE OF GOD, WITH WHICH THE 
WHOLE ECONOMY OF SALVATION HAS BEEN CONTRIVED. V. 33—36. 


V. 33. The subject of the second half of the chapter was God’s 
love, first alluring Israel, which, as it would not hear was suffered to 
fall, then turning Israel’s fall into the riches of the Gentiles, and so 
introducing the Heathen into God’s kingdom, using that as a farther 
means, at the end of time, for enticing the Jews, and as a terminating 
point of the world’s developement, incorporating that nation likewise 
into the great spiritual community of the invisible church. This 
magnitude of the divine wisdom and love, which, in such various 
ways, seek admission into the proud heart of man, with a view of 
bringing it to the knowledge of its happiness and peace, forces from 
the Apostle an animated exclamation. With that terminates the his- 
torical corollary of the doctrinal part of the Epistle; and a worthy 
conclusion it is. It is clear from the connection, that these words 
are merely the expression of adoring wonder at the magnitude of the 
divine compassion; and, accordingly, that they cannot be applied, 
as is done by Augustine and predestinarians in general, to put to si- 
lence the man who denies an unconditional withholding of the 
grace of God. ‘The words are rather a testimony against a decretum 

50 


394 CHAPTER XI. Vv. 33. 


absolutum on the part of God. Chrysostom: Ἐνταῦθα ini τοὺς meo- 
τέξους χρόνους ἐπανελθὼν, καὶ τὴν ἅνωθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατανοήσας οὐκονομίαν 
τὴν ἐξ οὗπερ ὃ κόσμος ἐγένετο, μέχου τοὺ παρόντος, καὺ λογισάμενος πῶς 
πουκίλως πάντα ᾧκονόμησε;: ἐξεπλάγη καὶ ἀνεβόησε: πιστούμενος τοὺς axov- 
οντας OTL ἔσται, πάντως ἅπεξ εἶπεν. οὐ yae ἂν ἀνεβόησε καὶ ἐξεπλάγη» εἰ 
μὴ πάντως ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαυ τοῦτο, καὶ ὅτι μὲν βάθος ἐστὶν, olds" πόσον δὲν» 
οὐκ ode θαυμάζοντος yae ἔστιν ἡ ῥῆσιςν οὐχ εἰδότος τὸ πᾶν. θαυμάσας 
δὲ χαὺ ἐκπλαγεὶς τὴν χρηστότητα; καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐγχωροῦν αὐτῷ διὰ δύο τῶν 
ἐπιτατικῶν ὀνομάτων αὐτὴν ἀνεχήφυξε» τοῦ πλούτου; xav Tov βάθους; καὺ 
ἔξεπλάγην. ὅτι καὶ ἠθέλησε καὶ ἴσχυσε ταῦτα: xat διὰ τῶν 
ἐναντίων τὰ ἐναντία κατεσκεύασεν. In regard to the words 
used by Paul, a double construction is admissible. Σοφίας and γνώ- 
σεως may, as Luther, Beza and many others have done, be considered 
as dependent upon βάθος πλούτου, Or πλούτου be made co-ordinate with 
σοφίας and γνώσεως, and so all the three dependent upon βάθος. In the 
former case the double xac would need to be translated ‘*as well as 
moreover.’’? The substantive βάθος would stand in the place of the 
adjective βαθύς. It militates against this exposition, however, that 
we would then have to suppose that Paul strictly discriminated the 
ideas of σοφία and γνῶσις. Sometimes, it is true, he has done so, as 
we see from 1 Cor. xii. 8, where γνῶσις denotes the higher theoretical 
knowledge of religion, σοφία practical wisdom, as Eph. v. 15. But 
such a distinction could: not well be made here with respect to the 
divine knowledge. It is hence more advisable to consider σοφία and 
γνῶσις to be in this, what they are at other passages, 6. g. Col. ii. 3 
equivalent. We would not then need to refer πλοῦτος so explicitly 
as is done by Grotius, to the Jove of God, but to the fulness of the 
divine life in general, as πλοῦτος Χριστοῦ, Eph. ili. 8. In pure Greek 
the phrase πλοῦτος βαθὺς, (Adlian, Var. Hist. 1. iii. 6. 18,) and the 
adjective βαθύπλουτος are common. In regard to wisdom the phrases 
ΡΝ xnDdNT and 1 ὙΟΥ } pry P19, “depths of wisdom, and secrets 
deep and hidden,” occur in the book Sohar. 

τὰ κρίματα had best be taken in the sense “ dispensations, oixovo- 
μία." So, likewise, Dvowd, Ps. xix. 9; xxxvi. 6. In the latter 
passage from the Psalms, it is said, that the dispensations of God 
are as difficult to explore as the abyss of the sea. In this case it is 


* Here, going back to former times, and contemplating the divine economy 
from the beginning, yea, from the time the world was made, until now, and 
_reflecting with himself how’ variously God had administered all things, he is 
struck with astonishment, and utters an exclamation designed to persuade 
his hearers, that what he said will assuredly take place. For he would not 
have uttered his exclamation, or been astonished, had not the thing been cer- 
tain to take place. And that it was a depth he was aware, but how great a 
one he knew not. For the language is of a person amazed, and who does not 
know all. But amazed and struck at the goodness, he announced it to the 
best of his ability, by the two forcible words, riches and depth. What sur- 
prised him was, that God should have had the will and the power to do these tra 
and effected contraries by contraries. 


CHAPTER XI. Vv. 33, 34, 35. 395 


quite synonymous with the ὁδοὶ, 0.17, which has the same signifi- 
cation in Hebrew, and which here, in the Apostle’s animation, is 
placed on a parallel as counterpart to χρίματα. ‘The adjectives ἄνεξε- 
δεύνητος and ἀνεξυχνίαστος denote that man is not able to judge of God’s 
wisdom by his own. As the etymology of ἀνεξιχνίαστος declares, 
there are no foot-marks to guide us into that mysterious deep. All 
we know is only what, to us undiscoverable, he himself, of his un- 
speakable compassion, has been pleased to disclose from out his 
mysterious concealment. And yet how rich is this! A compassion 
that extends to all! A term to the developement of the corrupt spe- 
cies at which his redeemed shall see him as he is, and God shall be 
all in all. 

V.34. We find a declaration in unison with this at Is. xl. 13, 14, 
where, in the LXX., it is said: Tis ἔγνω νοῦν Κυξίου; xai τίς αὐτοῦ σύμ- 
βουλος ἐγένετο, ὃς συμβιβᾷ αὐτον. St. Paul likewise quotes it at 1 Cor. 
ii. 16. The meaning which, in the present instance, he attaches to 
it, is as follows: From below, out of onr misery, no path leads up- 
wards to God. He being all-sufficient in himself, must descend, if 
man is to know him. Consonant also are the beautiful words of 
Sophocles, (Fragm. No. vii. ed. Bothe aus Stobzus.) 


᾽Αλλ᾽ οὗ γὰρ ἂν τὰ θεῖα κρυπτόντων θεῶν 
Μάθοις ἂν, οὐδ᾽ εἰ πάντ᾽ ἐπεξέλθοις σκοπῶν. 


Similar, likewise, is the fine saying of a Persian in Dschami’s 
Spring Garden: ‘* The face of the beloved (of God,) is covered with 
a veil. Except he himself remove it off, nothing can-tear it from 
him.’’ Parallels to the texts from Paul and Isaiah are to be found, 
Wisdom ix. 17; Ecclesiasticus xviii. 2—5. 

V.35. This sentence stands in Hebrew, Job xli.11. In the LXX., 
however, a totally different sense of the orginal words is expressed. 
The Apostle means to teach, by the expression, that not merely can 
no mortal fathom the depths of divine wisdom and love, but that all 
which we thence receive is nothing but grace. Chrysostom: ὃ δὲ 
λέγευ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν; ὅτι οὕτω σοφὸς ὧν, οὐδὲ mae” ἑτέρου σοφὸς ἐστιν, GAN 
αὑτὸς ἐστιν ἡ πηγὴ τῶν ἀγαθῶν" καὺ τοσαῦτα ἐφγασάμενος, καὶ χαφισάμενος 
ἡ μῦν; οὐ παρ ἑτέρου δανεισάμενας ταῦτα ἔδωκεν» ἀλλ᾽ οἴκοθεν ἄναβλύσας, 
οὐδὲ ἀμοιβὴν ὀφεύλων τινὶ, ὡς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰληφώς τι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς κατάξχων 
GEL τῶν εὐεξγεσιὼῶν. τοῦτο γὰρ μάλιστά ἐστι πλούτου; TO καὺ ὑπεδχεῦσθαιν 
χαὶ μὴ δεῖσθαυ ἑτέρου.᾽ / 

We cannot ask, what has he given me? ‘He has conferred upon us 
every thing. And when from this point of view we contemplate all 


* What he says is, that respecting this wisdom of his, he does not derive 
it from another, but is himself the fountain of good. And as to his doing for, 
and bestowing upon us great things, he did not borrow them from another, 
but drew them from his own resources. Nor does he owe a return to any 
one, as if he had received aught from him, but is himself always the origi- 
nator of his blessings. For this is the characteristic of true riches—to abound 
and have no need of another. 


396 CHAPTER XI. V. 35, 36. 


his dealings and dispensations, we do not merely reverence, we adore 
in the dust, his wisdom and his love. It is into such a feeling of 
adoring self-abasementand humility, that the reader sinks at the con- 
clusion of this epistle, after having had brought before him, by the 
. Apostle, all the great and unspeakable things which God has done 
for the sinful race. 

V. 36. Paul-had delineated the indescribable wisdom, and bound- 
less love of God, and then affirmed, that in no way whatsover, not 
even so far as regards any part of the manifestations of these attri- 
butes, could the creature advance a claim; but that in every degree 
in which they are exercised towards the creature, it is pure grace. 
In what worthier manner then could the Apostle conclude than by 
this epiphonema, in which he, as it were, lays down the reason for 
the plenitude of the divine attributes being so exceeding great, and 
why all that man receives from them is nothing else but grace. 
Many expositors suppose no difference between the particles ἐξ, διὰ 
and sist ἐξ and εἰς, however, stand manifestly opposed to each other, 
and ca naturally shows itself to be mediatory betwixt them. At 1 Cor. 
viii. 6, ἐξ οὗ and εἰς ὃν stand opposed in a similar relation, and δὲ οὗ 
beside them. At Col. i. 16, it is said of Christ: ra πάντα δὲ αὐτοῦ 
xai εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, and afterwards: xai τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνεστηχε- 
The meaning of these words accordingly is: God is the basis of all 
that exists, for from him all took its rise. God is the means of 
all that exists, for he directs all that exists to its destination. God 
is the end of all that exists, for in him alone all the creatures rest. 
It was from God that man derived his being; to God must he return 
if he would truly be. ‘Through God must he be led to God. And 
thus God’s mercy is the beginning, the middle, and the end! 


CHAPTER TWELFTH. 


SHORTER GLOSSES UPON THE ADMONITORY PART OF THE EPISTLE. 


ARGUMENT. 


Exhortation to heavenly-mindedness—against over-estimating the gifts con- 
ferred upon us—to faithfulness in the application of them,—to the exhibi- 
tion of Christian dispositions, in a variety of occasions. 


V.1. Tue Apostle connects his exhortations to a truly Christian 
walk, with the foregoing doctrinal part, by the particle οὖν, just as if 
he presupposed that, by the contemplation of the grand display of 
divine grace, which had hitherto been described, the minds of his 
readers would be softened, and prepared for all good works. The 
διὰ τῶν oixtveuay Tov Θεοῦ, relates also to the previous delineation of 
the divine mercy, as revealed in the work of salvation. In the New 
Testament, διὰ is used in all admonitions and adjurations, with the 
genitive (Rom. xv. 30. 1 Cor.i. 10. 2 Cor. x. 1), this use emanating 
from the local signification of διὰ, and διά standing in the sense, as it 
were, of ἐπ presence. The plural oixcveuoi accords with the Hebrew 
Ὀ ΓΤ. : 

παξιστάναι ϑυσίαν, is, in profane authors, the technical expression 
for the oblation of the sacrifice. In Latin, sistere is the word. ‘The 
Apostle says, τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, because this was more suited to the 
comparison. “Ayios, here applied to the sacrifice, corresponds with 
the Hebrew ὉΠ, and means being free from any of the defects 
which God forbids in what was offered to him. Evaeeoros is then a 
sort of exegesis to it, and 2éoa denotes the point of difference betwixt 
the sacrifices in question, and those of the Old Testament. 

τὴν λογιχὴν AaTeévav κτλ. 15 apposition to’ the whole previous sen- 
tence, and so must be resolved into ὅπες ἔστιν ἡ λογικὴ κτλ. The 
λογιχὸς, however, is variously interpreted. Basil, Gregory Naz., 
Theophylact and others: ὅταν μηδὲν ἄλογον πάδϑος ἐν ἡμῖν κρατῇ, ἀλλὰ 
ὁ λόγος τὰ πάντα διουχῇ. Origen, Bengel: Rationabiliter offerenda. 
Theodoret says, that it stands in opposition to the irrational animals. 
But here too, it will be most correct to suppose a comparison with 
the Old Testament victims, such as was previously involved in ζῶσα. 
Precisely in the same way, in the Testam. XII. Patr. p. 547: seoo- 


398 CHAPTER ΧΙ v. 1, 2,3. 


φέρουσι (οἱ ἄγγελοι) χυξίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον πιροσφο- 
εάν. Τί 15 not therefore opposed to the ψυχιχὸς but to the cagxixos. A 
similar comparison of the New Testament inward theocracy with 
the outward theocracy of the Old Testament, is to be found in 
1 Peter ii. 5. 

V.2. The Codices A D E F G, and many Cod. Minusc. read 
συσχηματίζεσθαυν and μεταμοξφοῦσθαν in the infinitive, which, both as 
respects outward authority, as well as because it is the more unusual 
and difficult form, is to be held as the correct reading. In that case, 
indeed, the infinitive stands in place of the imperative, as occasion- 
ally occurs among the classics, especially in poetry, and frequently 
in Hebrew, and in the New Testament, in the following passages, 
Rom. xii. 15. Luke ix. 3. 2 Cor.ix.10. The expression αἰὼν οὗτος 
is to be explained from the Judaical doctrines which designated the 
period prior to the appearing of the Messiah, nin Dy, in opposition 
to the 827 D7, αἰὼν μέλλων, that is the Messias’ age. With the ap- 
pearing of Christ upon the earth, the Messias’ reign, a new era in 
the world’s history has begun. ‘The kingdom of God, which, pro- 
perly speaking, and in its completed form, will be set up beyond the 
grave, already exists. In this view, the Apostle admonishes those 
who belong to it, to walk upon earth, but yet to live in heaven (Col. 
iii. 1—3.) ‘The Christian ought not to have a like σχήμα (manner 
or form of being) with those who as yet are not incorporated into 
this invisible church, 1 Pet. i. 14. 

τῇ ἀνακχαινώσευ Tov νοὸς ὑμῶν. Νοῦς ἰ5 here the disposition, Col. il. 
18. The purpose of this ἀνακαίνωσυς lies in the εἰς τὸ δοκίμάζειν. 
The Apostle considers it as a peculiar operation of the Christian 
faith, that believers are seriously concerned to prove in every thing 
what is the will of God (Eph. v. 10); whereas man, in his natural 
state, looks more to the point of how he may please men. ‘The 
words ἀγαθὸν χαὶ εὐάξεστον xai τέλειον Were by the Syrian, the Vul- 
gate, ‘Theophylact, Gicumenius, and most others, conjoined as ad- 
jectives with θέλημα, a silent contrast being supposed with the will 
of God in the Old Testament, which was not altogether acceptable. 
Such a contrast would be much out of place; but even in other re- 
spects, the number of the adjectives makes the sentence trail, and 
εὐάρεστος does not well suit as a predicate to θέλημα τοὺ Θεοῦ. Hence, 
even Erasmus and Bucer, in their day, co-ordinate these adjectives 
as substantives to θέλημα. Comp. Eph. v.10; Phil. iv. 8. To cia- 
ξεστον we have to supply τῷ Θεῷ, which is oft conjoined with it. 
See above, ver. 1; likewise 2 Cor. v. 9; Col. iii. 20. 

V. 3. The yde indicates that the Apostle means to corroborate a 
special admonition by the more general one which preceded. The 
intellectual nature of man reveals itself in a variety of gifts, which, 
when he is brought under the influence of the Christian spirit, are 
purified and exalted, and ofttimes receive a new direction. In the 
early churches, the Apostles conferred the various ecclesiastical 
offices according to the diverse purified, nay possibly enlarged na- 


CHAPTER XI. ν, 3, 4, 5. 399 


tural gifts of the individual. When the new life principle of Christ’s 
spirit began to be operative upon the earth, there were also found, 
however, persons in whom talents were awakened, previously unex- 
ampled, and in whom the spirit of God wrought manifestations, not 
falling beneath the judgment of the human understanding, 1 Cor. 
xii. Even such gilts as these, the individuals to whom:they, were 
vouchsafed were to regard as pure gifts of grace, and to employ for 
the benefit of the church. But it soon happened, that one man set 
about comparing his peculiar gift—suppose it to have been either 
some purified natural talent, or one wholly preternatural—with that 
which had been imparted to another, and according to this rule, to 
esteem himself superior. Against such conduct as this, the Apostle 
gives a fine warning at 1 Cor. xii. 4—7. He urges them to reflect, 
that the spirit of God in all is but one, variously manifesting itself in 
a variety of vessels. He makes use of the very apposite similitude 
of the human body. Just like it, the spiritual body of the church of 
Christ constitutes an organic whole, in which not even the most in- 
considerable member can be wanted, without destroying its entire- 
ness. In this passage before us, also, while he warns against the 
mistake in question, Paul applies the same likeness, and exhorts 
every man, in the particular station to which, in consequence of his 
spiritual gift, he has been appointed, to seek to be all that his ap- 
pointment requires, 1 Pet. iv. 10. 

By χάξις, he means the grace of having been invested with the 
apostolical office. Rom. i. 5; xv. 15. 

παντὺ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμὸν iS doubtless somewhat more than mere circum- 
locution. As Erasmus observes, its drift is, that no one, on account 
of his rank and nation, &c., is justified in excepting himself from this 
exhortation of the Apostle. Peovery εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, in place of σωφ- 
φόνως Peover “ to have such sentiments as beget modesty,” 1 ‘Tim. 
11, 9: μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὺ σωφξοσύνης. The πύστις» as Shown by the con- 
text, is here put for the χαξίσματα, and so, properly speaking, is 
causa pro effectu.§ Faith in an unseen Christ brings man into con- 
nection with a world unseen, in which he moves without distinetly 
apprehending it; and, in proportion as he learns to look with faith to 
that world, the more is the measure of his spiritual powers elevated. 
When Paul, however, admonishes every man to estimate himself 
according to the measure of the faith vouchsafed to him, he means not 
to say, that the higher that is, so much the more highly are we to 
think of ourselves. What he wants is, that none should compare 
himself with another, but that every man, having made himself 
acquainted with his particular gift, should look to “nothing farther 
than its application in such a way as to please God. Gal. vi. 4. 

V. 4. πεᾶξις, function, as at Ecclesiasticus ix. 10. Ambrose: 
officia. 

V. 5. Doubtless, this exalted union, this co-operation in love to- 
wards one great end, ought to manifest itself in the outward church, 
which is intended to image forth the inward church; and it is an ob- 


400 CHAPTER XII. v. 5, 6. 


ject, with a view to which an enlightened and really Christian eccle- 
siastical government ought to act. It is, however, actually to be 
found among the true members of the visible church, in the invisible 
kingdom of believers. ‘The ἐν Xecorg denotes the spiritual life-prin- 
ciple by which the whole is upheld. This highly descriptive com- 
parison of-the relation of the bodily organization as a whole, and of 
the several members to each other, is applied by Antoninus, 1. 7, 6. 
13, to the universal body of beings gifted with reason, which certainly 
ought, according to the design of their creation, to form sucha union, 
and are only hindered from doing so by sin: Οἷόν ἔστιν ἐν ἡνωμένοις 
τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος; τοῦτον ἔχευ ΤῊΝ λόγον ἐν διεστῶσι τὰ λογυκὰνγ πεὸς 
μίαν τινὰ συνεῤγίαν χαφεσχκενασμένα. ἢ 

ὁ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς is, as Lucian expressly observes, ἃ solecism in place 
of xa’ ἕνα πάντες, altogether. ‘The same solecism is to be found 3 
Maceab. v. 84. So likewise εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς John viii. 9; Mark xiv. 19; 
and ava εἷς Rev. xxi. 21. 

V. 6. This sentence with ἔχοντες is joined merely as appendage 
to the foregoing, inasmuch as, whatever may be the unity, variety 
must also be manifested. In this way, the εὖτε προφητείαν 15 still to 
be connected with the ἔχοντες; by the xara τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως, 
however, Paul departs out of the province of description into that of 
admonition. For were we not to suppose so, even with reference to 
the ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ, ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ; ἐν τῇ παξακλήσευ, it not being incon- 
ceivable that Paul, in these words, does no more than describe wherein 
the diversity of operation consists, still we would require to give up 
that view, in consideration of the χατὼ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως» ἐν 
ἁπλότητι, tv σπουδῇ; tv ἱλαρότητι. ‘That he has dropped the construe- 
tion, admits so much the less of doubt, seeing that, in vers. 11,12, 13, 
we have participles, at ver. 14 imperatives and infinitives, and at ver. 
16 participles again. Accordingly, to each of the several offices 
mentioned, we must supply the corresponding verbs, which signify 
the discharge of them. A like ellipsis is to be found 1 Pet. iv. 11. 
Very similar, also, are the following examples in Arrian’s Epictetus, 
Dissert. Lay. exes δ 34: "Ayou δὲ μ᾽ ὦ Zev καὶ σὺ γ᾽ a Πεπρωμένη. 
Θέλετ᾽ Ets “Ῥώμην; εἰς “Ῥώμην. εἰς Γύαρα; εὺς Γύαρα. εἰς ᾿Αθήνας: εἰς 
᾿Αθήνας. And ]. ill. 6. 28, § ὅ: ᾧ μὲν cis ἐστι χοινὴ ἀναφορὰ, ἡ δ᾽ 
ἐδία. . .« .« ἡ δ᾽ ἰδία πεὸς τὸ ἐπιτήδευμά ἑκάστου χαὶ τὴν πέοαίξεσιν. ὃ 
κιθαξῳδὸς ὡς χιθαφῳδός᾽ ὃ τέχτων ὡς τέκτων" ὃ Φυλόσοφος ὡς φιλόσοφος. 

site προφητείαν. Before explaining this word, we shall notice 
generally the several Christian functions that occur in the sequel. On 
this subject, expositors have taken various views. Some consider 
each of the functions as a private business belonging to individuals 
among the Christians. So Chrysostom, Gicumenius and Limborch, 
Others as a public charge. So Calvin, Bucer, Grotius, Mosheim. 


* Just as the members of the body are in things united, the same design 
have beings rational as separate, having been formed to co-operate towards 
one end. 


CHAPTER XII. V. 6. 401 


The first supposition might be admitted with respect to προφήτης» 
inasmuch as that was not a standing office, doubtless also with 
respect to πεοιστάμενος in ver. 8, but in regard to διάκονος and 
διδάσχων, the usus loquendi speaks otherwise. ‘There is some- 
thing also which might be said in favour of the other view, see- 
ing that ver. 7 manifestly specifies public offices, and yet no notice 
is taken of a transition from these two offices of a private kind. 
In like manner the xeotorduecvos, in the middle of ver. 8, appears 
again to be a public office. ‘There is a difficulty which at once 
presents itself on this view of the passage; it is, that in the infancy 
of the church, the παρακαλῶν was not different from the διδάσκαλος; 
nor the μεταδιδοὺς and ἐλεῶν from the διάχονος. Several of the ex- 
positors we have named, however, skilfully extricate themselves from 
this difficulty, by supposing διδασκαλία and παξάκλησις to be the two 
functions of the neopntns, and μεταδιδόναι, mpovoravac and ἐλεεῖν the 
special business of the δὶ άκονος, so that Paul properly speaks only of 
the office of προφητεία and διακονία, including under them those more 
particular duties, which were again distributed among the various 
προφήταις and διαχόνοις. So Beza, Brais, Koppe and others. But 
the διδάσκαλος was certainly different from the προφήτης, as we shall 
afterwards see, the διάχονος cannot be called προύστάμενος, and in 
general such a subordination of the clauses is not, even in the most 
distant way, intimated by the structure of the whole. It is very dif- 
ficult to regard μεταδιδοὺς and ἐλεῶν as particular offices. We hence 
decide in favour of their exposition, who consider that, without any 
precise discrimination, Paul here speaks partly of the public, partly 
of the private functions of Christians, taking into account, as is re- 
quisite, that in those days the latter were not by any means so dis- 
tinctly sundered from the functions of a public character (which is 
shown by the προφῆται), and on the other hand, that even the public 
functions were not public, in our sense of the word (of this the dea- 
conesses and even the presbyters are instances). Which is likewise 
the view of Origen, Theodoret, Ambrose and others. 

Let us now consider the office of the προφήτης. In the New Tes- 
tament the word corresponds, in respect, both of the sense and of the 
usus loquendi, with the Hebrew δ 2). Both terms denote a conscious 
utterance and exposition of divine inspirations. "23 is equivalent to 
ἐξηγητὴς in Ex. vii. 1. In the case of the Greek oracles, προφῆται 
means the deliberate expounders of the deliverances of the μάντιες, 
who was not self-possessed. ‘The office of the πεοφήταυ in the Chris- 
tian churches was similar to that among the Hebrews. ‘They taught, 
roused and reproved believers, besides disclosing futurity. ‘They are 
distinguished, however, from the διδάσκαλος, not merely by their de- 
elaring the future, but partly by the fact, that their vocation was con- 
fined to moments of particular excitement, and partly that they ad- 
dressed more the heart than the understanding. 

χατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως. In the classics, Josephus and 
Philo, ἀναλογία means agreement; and hence Hesychius expounds 

51 


402 CHAPTER XI. v. 6, 7, 8. 


correcily: xara μέτρον 7 xavova, or as it was said at ver. 3, κατὰ μέ- 
reov πίστεως. If then the Apostle intends that the προφητεία should 
stand in a just relation to the πιστυς» it is necessary to determine what 
the πυστις here is. Πίστις denotes the believing faculty of man, over 
which the inspired discourse ought not in enthusiastic intoxication to 
soar. Compare the serious admonition, Jer. xxiii. 28. While the 
heathen μάντυς was wildly borne away by the impulse, in which hu- 
man passion commingled with the higher element, the Christian 
prophet was enabled, by his enlightenment, to retain a consciousness 
of whether he was speaking from his own or divine instigation. So 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gicumenius, Pelagius, Calvin and many 
more. Others, however, have understood πίστις objectively, of the 
Christian doctrine from which the πεοφητεία was not to deviate. So 
first ‘Thos. Aquinas, and following him Salmeron, Cocceius, Piscator 
and Calov. In this sense is the phrase analogia fidei used in 
dogmatical theology. In the passage before us, however, this inter- 
pretation is opposed by the fact, that in his inmost heart, and aceord- 
ing to the degree of faith which belonged to him, the πξοφήτης was 
moved by God to bring forth what was new. (Neander, Kirchen 
Gesch. I. 1, s. 279): ‘* The divine operation in the prophets mani- 
fested itself as something creative.’’ Moreover, although the Chris- 
tian prophets did not fall into a state of heathenish μανίαν they still 
_ fell into one of ἔκστασις, in which the cool judgment is not available, 
although, in regard to one point, the Apostles taught something dif- 
ferent. , 

V. 7. In the early church, the διάκονος was the person to whom 
the charge of externals was committed, such as cleaning the place of 
worship, the care of the indigent and the sick, Acts vi. 1. In the 
synagogue this office-bearer was called jim. Such a person stood ex- 
posed to the dangers of striving after the teacher’s office. 'To the ἐν 
τῇ διακονίῳ We must here supply μενέτω ΟΥ ἔστω. (Compare the use 
of εἶναν ἔν τινι, 1 Tim. iv. 15.) Acdacxaaca was the regular business 
of instruction, that in which the understanding alone had part. 

V.8. With the word παξαχαλῶν, the Apostle enters the domain 
of such spiritual gifts as were not employed in distinct offices. TTaea- 
καλεῦν has the double meaning, to admonish or to encourage, comfort. 
The first would be here the most suitable. ‘Thus λόγος παξακχλήσεως» 
Acts xiii. 15. Justin, M. (Apol. i. 6. 67,) says, that after the read- 
ing of the Bible, the zeocozds spoke a word of νουθεσία and πεόκλησις. 
Grabe, in place of πρόκλησις reads παράκλησις. 

ὃ μεταδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι, 7. 6. without any side or by-views, but from 
the single regard that he who solicits alms is really in want of them. 
Paul here calls for the putting away of all showing off of self. Com- 
pare 2 Cor. ix. 13, and Jas. i. 5. ᾿Απλοῦς has certainly also the 
meaning abundant, generous, (the citations from the classics and 
Josephus, by Kypke and Krebs, upon these texts are decisive): Here, 
however, the usual meaning is the more suitable. ‘That μεταδοὺς was 
the official name of the treasurer (823), who distributed the contribu- 


7 CHAPTER ΧΙ. 8, 9, 10, 11. 403 
tions of others, is no less difficult to believe than that ἐλεῶν was he 
who had the oversight of the poor, (ata later period parabolanus.) 

ὁ τιδοϊστάμενος ἐν σπουδῇ. Standing, as it here does, among the 
private functions of Christians, this word might certainly be appre- 
hended, generally, as ‘* the person elected to oversee any affair what- 
soever.” ‘The expression, however, is rather to be taken up officially. 
Paul applies it 1o the bishop or presbyter, Justyn Martyr also calls 
the presbyter πεοεστὼς τῶν ἀδελφῶν, (Apol. i. 6. 67). 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
the xvBéevyars is reckoned among the gifts of grace. The πρεεσβύτε- 
δου, in fact, were divided into the διδάσκοντες and xvBeerarres, accord- 
ing to their various gifts. The latter office is the one here meant. 
"Ry ἑλαφότητι, compare 2 Cor. ix. 7. Paul wages hostility to the 
opus operatum, as when the monks used often, through constraint of 
the law, to attend to the sick. The true Christian ought to feel it to 
be a pleasure to minister to the sufferer. 

V. 9. Here the admonitions become of a still more general cha- 
racter. ‘The mutual affection of Christian brethren for each other 
ought not to consist merely in outward semblance, but to emanate 
from the heart, 2 Cor. vi. 6. 1 Pet. 1.22. Following after the men- 
tion of the ἀγάπην and as verse 10 resumes the subject of φιλαδελφία, 
πονηφὸν would seem not to stand in the general sense, but to denote 
a malicious, inimical disposition, and ἀγαθὸν in contrast, en affec- 
tionate disposition. In profane authors, likewise, wovneds signifies 
malicious, ἀγαθὸς» benevolent. 

V.10. Φιλόστοξγου, cherishing such tender affections as the nearest 
relatives do for each other. Eis ἀλλήλους. Chrysostom: Μὴ μένε 
φιλεῦσαν παρ᾽ ἑτέρου: ἄλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐπιυπήδῳ τούτῳ καὶ κατάξχου. οὕτω γὰρ 
τῆς ἐκείνου φιλίας μισθὸν καφπώσῃ.ἢ 

πιδοηγούμενοι. ἸΙξοηγεῖσθαυν means to go before, to give an exam- 
ple. 2 Mace. iv. 40. ‘The dative in τιμῇ means in honour. Chry- 
SsOstom: οὐδὲν οὕτω φίλους ποιεῖ ὡς τὸ σπουδάξειν τῇ τιμῇ νικᾷν τὸν πλή- 
cwov.t So too the Syriac and Vulgate. Others, as ‘Theodoret and 
Pelagius, take πξοηγεῦσθαι in the sense fo prefer, to reckon superior. 
We should then have to compare Phil. ii. 8, This meaning, how- 
ever, is not consonant with the usus loquendi. 

V.11. Chrysostom refers the zeal here spoken of to what has 
preceded: Καὶ yae εἰσι πολλοὺ xard διάνοιαν φιλοῦντες καὶ οὐχ deé- 
γοντὲς χεῖίφα. Sud τοῦτο πάντοθεν οἰκοδομεῦ τὴν ἀγάπην. It will 
searcely do, however, to connect this admonition with the former. 
Sxovdy means the disposition of zeal for the kingdom of God, in 
which the Christian ought to be indefatigable. Paul raises still 
higher this demand, by requiring a fervent spirit. ‘The verb ζέω is 


* Wait not until thou art loved by another, but make advances and begin. 
For thus shalt thou reap the reward of his friendship. 

+ Nothing tends so much to make friends, as endeavouring to overcome 
one’s neighbour in doing him honour. 

4 There are many indeed, who love in the heart, but who do not stretch forth 
the hand; wherefore he promotes love on every side. 


404 CHAPTER xi. v. 11, 12, 138, 14. 


used of the emotions, compare Acts xviii. 28. It is doubtful whether 
τῷ πνεὐμάτι is to be referred to the Holy Spirit, or to that of man. 
The former reference is adopted by ‘Theodoret, Chrysostom, 'Theo- 
phylact, Calvin and many others, and in that case we might compare 
1 Thess. v. 19. Calvin: Caro torpet, stimulis opus habet, solus 
autem est spiritus fervor, qui nosiram pigritiam corrigit. Quanquam 
Dei donum est, he tamen partes injunguntur fidelibus, ut torpore 
excusso, flammam divinitus accensam concipiant, sicuti ut plurimum 
contingit, spiritus impulsum nostra incuria suffocari et extingui. 

τῷ Κυξίῳ δουλεύοντες. ‘The reading τῷ Κυξίῳ has most external 
authority in its favour. ‘The only objection would be, that being 
the more common, it had been substituted in the place of that which 
is less so, καιρῷ, It may likewise, however, be said, that some one 
had wished to annex a limitation, or, perhaps also an extension to 
. the πνεύματι ζέοντες. OF again the abbreviated form of χυξίῳ might 
have been read incorrectly, and in this way the expression by καυξῷ 
δουλεύοντες might have been changed into a locus communis. ‘The 
internal evidences for the two readings are ata par. If xaved be the 
word, the sentence may relate to what goes before, and the meaning 
be ‘improve every opportunity.’’ But in this sense δουλεύειν xaved 
is unusual, or it may—which is then the best supposition—prepare 
for the sequel. Koed δουλεύοντες might also limit ζέοντες τῷ πνεύματι» 
but in this passage, that would be weak, although elsewhere Paul 
gives such a counsel, Eph.v.16. At any rate, it has the significa- 
tion in which ἀχολουθεὺν τοῖς xaveors usually appears, Polyb. Hist. 28. 
6,7. If Κυείῳ be the word, it may serve to intimate more definitely 
the object, to which the σπουδὴ and the πνεῦμα δέον refer. Seeing 
then that the external evidence in favour of Κυείῳ preponderates, 
and that there is no internal evidence against it, we adopt that as the 
reading. ‘The Apostle in his warmth frequently expresses in several 
divided sentences, what he might have said by one. 

V.12. Deportment of the Christian under calamity. Rejoicing 
in the prospect of the help of the Lord; perseverance through the 
might of the Lord, an always invincible weapon; prayer incessant. 
With the previous verse there may be the unexpressed connection of 
ideas; wherever the work of the Lord is zealously performed, there 
the θλύψις does not fail. ἢ 

V.13. “Ayo are the members of the spiritual theocracy, being 
persons devotedto God. Κοινωνέω to communicate, with the dative of 
the thing or person to whom one communicates. Φιλοξενία. By this 
fine virtue of the early Christians, their fellowship as brethren was 
promoted in avery high degree. ‘The Apostle esteemed it so highly, 
that he enjoined it as a condition of their office, upon the ministers 
of the church. 1 Tim. v. 10. Tit. i. 8. 

V. 14. Conduct of Christians towards those that are without. 
Compare the commandment of the Lord, Matt. v. 44, Chrysostom: 
ὅξα ὅσα ἐντεῦθεν γίνεταν τὼ χαλά. καὶ σοὶ μισθὸς μείζων χκαὺ ὃ πειξασμὸς 


CHAPTER xi. v. 15, 16. 405 


ἐλάττων, κἀκεῖνος ἀποστήσεταν διώκων; καὶ ὁ Θεὸς δοξασθήσεταυ καὶ ἡ δι- 
δασχαλία; καὶ τῷ πεπλανημένῳ γενήσεταυ NEOs εὐσέβειαν ἡ σὴ φυλοσοφία. ἢ 

Υ. 15. Infinitives in place of imperatives. See observations on 
v. 2. Chrysostom: ‘One might think it was no difficult task to 
rejoice with others. But it is harder than to weep with them. For 
that is done even by the natural man when he beholds a friend in 
distress., There is need of grace, however, to enable us, not merely 
to abstain from envying, but even with all our hearts to rejoice at 
the good fortune of a friend.” Yes, doubtless, and it also requires 
spiritual affection of a loftier sort to accommodate in general the flue- 
-tuation of our sentiments to the state of our Christian brother. A 
permanent and genuine tenderness of feeling, can only be founded 
upon a high degree of love. ᾿ 

V.16. Origen, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Ambrose: ‘ Let each put 
himself in another’s place, in order to conceive what his feelings 
would be.”’ In this way, the meaning would be the same as at v. 
15. C£cumenius, Erasmus and others: ‘* Think of others as well 
as of yourselves.”? ‘This interpretation has to recommend it, that 
the sentence would then be closely connected with the sequel. But, 
to say nothing of the objections to these two interpretations, the usus 
loquendi goes to prove that the τὸ αὐτὸ péovery means fo be of one 
mind, 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2. Rom. xv. 5, which is equivaient 
to the τὸ ἕν φεονεὶν in Phil. ii. 2. In place of εἰς ἀλλήλους», there usu- 
ally stands ἐν ἀλλήλοις, Mark ix. 50. John xiii. 35. Rom. xv. 5. So 
likewise Dion. Halic. Antiq. R. 1. iv. c. 20, p. 250, ed. Huds. Even 
taking this explanation, the proposition is connected with the sequel, 
inasmuch as the greatest enemy to concord is pride. 

ἀλλὰ τοῖς ταπεινοις συναπαγόμενοι. Συναπάγεσθαν tue Means fo be 
led forth, or borne away with any one. ‘'Tropically in a bad sense, 
ἐς 10 let one’s self be carried away, (seduced) by any thing. So Gal. 
ii. 13. 2 Pet. ili.17. Now ταπεινοὺς may be the mase. adject. and 
συναπάγεσθαν conjoined with it in its proper sense. ‘The meaning 
would then be, ‘consent to be dragged, with the ταπεινοῖς (the de- 
spised Christians), before the court.’””? So Koppe, Schleusner, Stolz. 
In this case, however, the contrast to the ὑψηλὰ peovecv would be 
highly forced. Others take it in the tropical way we have specified, 
but in a good sense, interpreting ταπεινοί the humble, and thus 
making the meaning, ‘* Be led by the humble to humility.” So 
Grotius, Limborch, Chr. Schmid. As, however, the neuter ὑψηλά 
went before, many, and among thers, Calvin and Beza, prefer to 
consider ταπεινοῖς as likewise neuter, and hence, retaining the same 
tropical meaning of συναπάγεσθαι, translate, ‘Be guided by humi- 
lity.”” To both of these last mentioned explanations, however, there 


* Behold how many good effects flow from such conduct, both a greater 
reward to thyself, and less temptation, and thy persecutor will cease to per- 
secute, and God will be glorified, and the Christian discipline, and thy wis 
dom shall bring back the mistaken man to piety. 


406 CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 17, 18, 19. 


is much to object. It cannot by any means be shown, that συναπά- 
yeodae in the good sense also, can mean, ““ to let one’s self be carried 
away.’ Even in profane authors, it means this only in a sinister 
sense, for which alone the etymology of the word would speak. 
Supposing ταπεινοὺς to be neuter, one would rather have expected 
canewopeodvry, to be used. Supposing it masculine, the expression 
would be unnatural, for natural it certainly is not, if Paul recom- 
mends the imitation of the humble, instead of the endeavour after 
humility. It would be more judicious to take συναπάγομαυ here, in 
the sense of συμποξεύομαι; as it is explained by Hesychius; under- 
standing it, at the same time, tropically of intercourse with any one. 
Ταπεινοί may then mean, those to whom no peculiar spiritual gifts 
were vouchsafed. The more gifted Christians might be blinded by 
the conceit of having no fellowship with such weaker brethren. It 
is thus that Chrysostom, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger and others, under- 
stand the συναπάγομαι; the ταπεινοί means with them poor and de- 
spised persons. 

V.17. Μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι κτλ. See on ch. xi. 25. He who does 
not willingly hear the opinions of the brethren, but in all things seeks 
counsel at himself, knows not the bond of perfectness, and disturbs 
unity. We may learn something even from the lowliest Christian. 

μηδενὶ xaxdv ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδὶδόντες. Viewing evil as the Christian 
does, in the aspect of its being divinely permitted, and in so far as 
the dispensation of God, it is easy for him to bear it with resigna- 
tion. ‘The peace which accompanies such a disposition, is more 
elevating than the sense of gratified revenge. 

πεονοούμενοι κτλ. The passage is from Prov. iii. 4. Teovdeouar, 
in the active as well as the middle, signifies, like prospicio, fo care 
for any thing. ᾿Ἐνώπιον after the Hebrew 15) or "ry, ‘ according 
to the judgment.” ‘The Christian ought, as far as conscience per- 
mits, so to walk that even the world shall take no offence, (1 Cor. 
x. 32.) What Tertullian makes the Heathen say of such Christians, 
is borrowed from the life: Bonus vir Caius Seius, tantum quod 
Christianus! (Tert. Apol. ¢. 3.) 

V.18. The Christian ought not to seek offence; neither should 
he, by that which does not flow from the Christian spirit, oecasion 
offence. The Saviour, accordingly, pronounces his μακαξισμός upon 
those only who are persecuted for his sake. 

V.19. This admonition is connected with the previous one. For 
the purpose of avenging ourselves, we should not fall out with the 
world. We ought to leave vengeance to God. ‘There are three 
ways of interpreting τόπον διδόναι τῇ deyy. 1. ‘Oeyy is the wrath of 
the adversary, and τόπον διδόναν means, to go out of the way. So 
Pelagius, Ambrose, Basil, Schittgen, Ammon. In Rabbinical Dip 
1) means, fo retreat, go out of the way. 2. ’Oeyy is one’s own 
wrath. Τόπον διδόναι, after the Latin, means spatium dare rei, to 
defer. So Bos, Surenhusius and Koppe. For this use of τόπος» we 
might compare Wisd. xii. 20. It is however most accordant with 


CHAPTER XII. v. 19, 20. 407 


the usus loquendi, to take τόπον δυδόναν in the sense, fo give access, 
allow to operate, in which case ὀργή applies to the wrath of God. In 
this sense τόπον διδόναν is quite common, whereas the two other sig- 
nifications are not demonstrable. Joseph. Archael. 1. xvi.c.11,§ 6, 
SayS τῷ ἐνδοιασμῷ τόπον διδοναι. Eph. iv. 27, we have τῷ διαβόλῳ 
tézoy δυδόναι. Compare also Luke xiv. 9. Plutarch de Ira cohibenda, 
6. 14, has likewise, in reference to anger, the self-same phrase: dec 
δὲ μήτε παίζοντας αὐτῇ (τῇ deyy) διδόναυ τόπον. Elsewhere, we have 
also χώξαν διδόνάν ὀδύομοις. Anton. Comm. 1. iii. 6. 6. So also in 
Ignatius ad Philad. c. 2, of the teachers of error: ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι ὑμῶν 
οὐχ ἕξουσι τόπον. Even in the Rabbinical, the usus loquendi may be 
evinced. Berach. c. 4, it is said: Ὁ ΓΞ. pip mn, ** what is the 
occasion to this prayer?’’? The Apostle’s meaning accordingly is, 
The Christian must patiently await what God himself will do for 
the protection of innocence, and the punishment of evil. ‘The Old 
Testament passage is Deut. xxxii. 35. 

V.20. The Apostle raises still higher the duties of the Christian, 
in respect of enemies. Not merely must he abstain from vengeance, 
he must manifest love. The figurative saying is borrowed from 
Proverbs xxv. 21,22. To feed and give drink, is an image for 
benefits; burning coals are the same for pain. In this sense, there 
occurs among the Rabbins the phrase formed after Ps. xi. 6; xviii. 9, 
poma jn) Dd), “to give any one coals and lightning.” ‘Thus also 
do we read in Consessus Hariri, Cons. v. p. 175, ed. Shult, * He 
bade me farewell, and left behind him in my heart, glowing coals of 
the Tamarisk, (which long retains the heat.’’) In Arabschah, Vita 
Timuri, ed. Gol. p. 126, and elsewhere, occur such phrases as ‘‘to 
roast and burn the heart,’”’ expressive of giving pain. Nay, the ex- 
pression, 4 Ezra xvi. 54, agrees still better with that before us: Ne 
neget nocens se peccasse, nam carbones ignis comburet super caput 
ejus, qui se in dominum Deum peccasse negaverit. In Pirke Av. ct. 
2, § 10, “coals of the wise,’’ are equivalent to ‘cutting jests that 
give pain.” Now, the saying may be understood, to the effect, that 
in this manner the punishment of the wicked would be heightened. 
So it is understood by Chrysostom, Theodoret, ‘Theophylact, Pho- 
tius, Grotius, Cameron, Wetstein and others. But the expositors of 
a more ancient date connect the following verse as follows: “ Doubt- 
less a severer penalty is thereby brought upon the wicked. But this 
ought not to be the motive for your showing him affection. Your 
intention must always be, to overcome evil with good.” It will be 
more correct, however, to consider the coals of fire as image for that 
tormenting sense of shame, which, in the end, forces the adversary 
to supplicate forgiveness, inasmuch as no heart, however hard, can 
permanently resist a love so uniform, patient, and everywhere for- 
getting and subordinating self. ‘This is just what is afterwards said 
without a figure in v.21. In the way specified, these verses have 
been admirably expounded by Augustine, De doctr. Christ. 1. ili. e. 
16, and Jerome, ep. 120, ad Hedib. ed. Vall, (150 in the other edi- 


408 CHAPTER XII. v. 20, 21. 


tions, qu. 1.) In the same way is the passage understood by Pela- 
gius, Ambrose, Erasmus, Clarius and others. 

V. 21. Anger and malice constitute a state of slavery. We are 
overcome of evil, when we permit ourselves to be driven from the 
submissiveness of a heavenly frame, and plunged into these passions. 
But we overcome evil with good, when, by our calmness, we even 
make the adversary calm. 


CHAPTER THIRTEENTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


Apmonttton to be subject to the magistracy, that being ordained of God, con- 
nected with the admonition to maintain, in general, a heavenly walk, and 
especially to exercise love. 


V.1. The Apostle exhorts Christians to be subject to the ma- 
gistracy, to which same effect we find exhortations in Tit. iii. 1; 1 
Pet. ii. 18... These were of great importance for believers, especially 
at that time. Recent converts being now introduced into quite a new 
and spiritual order of things, finding themselves placed, with respect 
to friends, parents, and fellow-citizens, on a different footing from 
before, nay, being called upon to come forward in hostile opposition 
to temporal relations and modes of life, might by all this, be betrayed 
into a haughty spirit, tending to the destruction of the ancient order 
of things. We remark how, in the convulsions of their time, the 
reformers had to obviate such errors. Moreover, the Christians of 
the early age, being subject to a secular magistracy, often saw them- 
selves compelled, at ihe command of conscience, to resist their be- 
hests. ‘To a certain extent this conduct gave them the semblance 
of a revolutionary character; and, indeed, they were represented by 
the heathen, as foes of the emperor and ἀνυπότακτοι; (Comp. the accu- 
sations brought against them by the Jews, Acts xvii. 7.) And, partly 
from the causes specified, the desire of disburdening themselves of 
such domination, might actually be kindled in their breasts. It is to 
be added that the Jewish converts did introduce a rebellious spirit 
into the Christian churches, inasmuch as the Jews, according to Deut. 
xvii. 15, ambitious of having a ruler of their own nation, offered con- 
tinual resistance to the Roman power, (Joseph. Archaeol. 1. xvii. 6. 2, 
§ 4. Sueton. Claud. ὁ. 25,) and produced politico-religious enthu- 
siasts, such as Judas of Gamala. It is not, however, after outward 
independence and freedom that genuine Christianity strives, but after 


the freedom of the soul from the yoke of sin, (Comp. the beautiful. 


words of ‘Tertullian, in the Apol. c. 1: Nihil de causa sua [religio 

christ. | deprecatur, quia nec de conditione miratur, scit se peregrinam 

in terris agere, inter extraneos facile inimicos invenire, ceterum sedes, 

spem, gratiam, dignitatem czxlis habere. And, although, in the 

breasts of potentates, true Christianity would prevent the rise of des- 
52 


5 


Ἅ 


γ΄ 


410 CHAPTER XIll. v. 1. 2, 3, 4. 


potism, yet, in the Christian who finds himself once subjected to a 
despotic sceptre, instead of awakening resistance to evil, it will ope- 


yrate in making this yoke also, like many more in life, be borne as 


from God, and improved for the advancement of the. good of the 
soul. Here, too, the wxa ἐν τὼ ἀγαθῷ τὸ xaxdv applies. And if the 
Apostle Inculeated such submission to severe heathen magistracies, 
much more ought it to take place under Christian magistracies of the 
same character. 

πᾶσα ψυχή after the Hebrew for ἕκαστος. 

ὑπερέχων ** the superior, sovereign,” Wisdom vi. 5. 1 Pet. ii. 13. 
ot ἐν ὑπεξοχῇ κείμενου, 2 Mac. iil. 11. Theodoret: ἐστέον μέντοι, ὡς 
τὸ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαυ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ πξομηθείας ἔξήφτησεν 6 θεῖος ἀπόστο- 
Ros, οὐ τὸ τὸν δεῖνα ἢ τὸν δεῦνα Geyew. OV γὰξ Tov Θεοῦ χειξοφονίω τῶν 
ἀδύχων 7 ἐξουσία, ἀλλὰ αὐτὴ ἡ τῆς ἡγεμονίας οἰκονομία. εὐμενὴς μέντου ὧν 
δίδωσιν ἄδχοντας τιμῶντας τὸ δίχαιον---παιδεῦσαυ δὲ πλημμελοῦντας βου- 
AOMEVOS, καὶ Aa πονηξὼν ἀρχόντων ἀἄρχεσθαν συγχωρεῖ. Chrysostom:. 
“Let not the Christian say: Paul! How is this? Destined as we 
are to reign with Christ, dost thou subject us to terrestrial kings? 
The Apostle explains that in doing so he but subjects them to God.” 
The δέ merely indicates the logical opposition; the οὖσαν are the 
“actually existing.” 

V. 2. ἑαντοὺς κείμὰ λήψονται. We havea like expression in 2 Pets 
ii. 1. It intimates, as a consequence of the very order of things, that 
every insurrection brings along with it its due punishment. Κρίμα 
λήψονταυ is, after the Hebrew Dawn NW), to suffer punishment. 

V. 3. Augustine, in his day, observes that the heathen magistracy 
was not of such a character as to praise the good conduet of Chris- 
tians, and that hence ἔπαινος must mean the martyr’s crown, So, too, 
Pelagius, Zeger and others. But the Apostle is only speaking of the 
dealing of the magistracy in respect of what, even to the Christian, 
was sin, to wit, rebellion. Were the Christian to fall into such un- 


-christian sins as that, his Christianity could not protect him. 


V. 4. Here, too, we must keep in view the allusion principally 
before the mind of the Apostle, viz. to disturbers of the peace. Upon 
such the magistracy exercises its authority as a divine ordinance.. 
The sword is the ensign of the potentate. We find in the Talmudists, 
ΓΙ 722 8290, “the king who wears a sword.’ Among the old 
Romans, the lictor carried the axe before the dictator, consul, &e. 
The emperors wore a dagger as type of their power over life and 
death (Suetonius, Galba, ὁ. 11. ‘T'aciti Historiar. 1. iii. 6. 68,) which 
was also done by the prefecti pretorio and the highest military 


* Be it known, moreover, that the divine Apostle makes the institution of 
civil government depend upon the providence of God, not, however, the fact 
of this or that person being ruler. For the power of wicked men does not 
proceed from the divine choice, but the ordinance itself of government. 
When he is propitious he gives rulers who pay respect to justice, but when 
he means to correct men for their errors, he permits them to be governed by 
wicked rulers. 


- 


CHAPTER XIII. V. 5, 6, 7. 411 


officers. ’Ogy; denotes metonymically the consequences of wrath; 
accordingly, it means punishment. 

V. 5. The Christian is admonished from every side, to yield obe- 
dience to the-magistracy; on the one, from a regard to the power of 
punishing committed to magistrates by God; on the other, from a re- 
gard to his own conscience, which enjoins upon him this obedience 
as a duty not to be omitted. In the same way ought servants, for 
their God’s sake, to obey the command of their masters, Eph. vi. 6. 

V. 6. φόρες τελεῖτε may be either imperative or indicative. Agu 
zovpyo yap κτλ. ‘There is a twofold exposition of this saying. We 
may understand λευτόργοί in the narrower sense of tax-gatherers. In 
that case, the αὐτὸ τοῦτο is their office, Θεοῦ stow 15. predicate, and 
Θεοῦ 15 equivalent to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ: ‘*'Tax-gatherers are divinely ap- 
pointed, and it is for this very business that they are made.’ The 
φελεῦτε Would then have to be taken as imperative. Such is the ex- 
position of Koppe, and much may be said in its favour. It fits very 
well into the connection, and suggests a motive for the injunction to 
pay tribute. It was the more necessary, considering that the Jews 
had not merely in general a very low esteem for the τελώναις, on 
account of their peculation, but even entertained scruples about pay- 
ing tribute to a heathen magistracy. (Mat. xxii. 17. Judas of Ga- 
mala, according to Josephus, Archeol. 1. xvili. c. 1, taught: τὴν ἀπο- 
Pipnow οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ἀντιχρὺς δουλείαν ἐπιφέρειν). Besides, it is easy in 
this way, to explain the αὐτὸ τοῦτο. But λευφουργός, without farther 
addition, cannot well be equivalent to τελώνης. Besides, it certainly 
appears unnatural in this place to regard the Θεοῦ εἰσύν as predicate, 
and translate: “they are appointed by God.”’ Hence the common 
exposition is to be preferred, according to which λειτουργοὶ Θεοῦ 15 
predicate of magistrates in general, they being, as it were, instru- 
- ments of God to maintain justice upon the earth, the αὐτὸ τοῦτο is the 
λειτουργεῖν τῷ Θεῷ. Even on this view of the words, it is better to 
regard φτελεῦτε aS imperative. ‘The exhortation was necessary, be- 
cause, at that period, the crime of embezzling the tribute and taxes, 
prevailed over the whole Roman empire. The more striking in this 
respect, was the contrast of the Christians, who, although enemies 
of the heathen, yet manifested such integrity in regard to the tribute, 
that ‘Tertullian affirms, what the Romans lost by Christians in the 
way of temple-dues, was compensated by their conscientiousness in 
paying the taxes (Tertullian, Apol. ὁ. 42, in fine). ‘This took place 
even under a heathen magistracy, under a Claudius, and a Nero! 

γ. 7. The Christian’ subjects himself to every human ordinance 
which is not hostile to that of God. ‘This is admirably expressed 
by ‘Tatian with reference to the present text, contra Gracos, ¢. iv. p. 
246, ed. Bened.: Ei μὴ τοῖς τινῶν vomimors συγχεῆσθαυν βούλομαι, τίνος 
χάξιν χαδάπιερ μιαρώτατος μεμίσημαι; προστάττει φόρους τελεὺν ὁ βασιλεύς; 
Eroumos παξέχειν. δουλεύειν ὁ δεσπότης καὶ ὑπηξετεῖν; τὴν δουλείαν γινώσ- 
xove τὸν μὲν γὰς ἀνϑέωπον ἀγθρωπίνως τυμητέον, φοβη- 


412 CHAPTER XIII. v. 8, 9, 10. 


φέον δὲ μόνον τὸν Θέον." πᾶσι is not to be referred to all sorts of 
magistracies, as Melancthon, Grotius and others will have it, but to 
all sorts of men. ᾿Ὀφειλή, debt, figuratively, duty. To τὸν Φόρον, 
per attract. in place of ᾧ τὸν qdgov ὀφείλετε, τούτῳ τὸν Φόρον᾽ according 
to Winer, τῷ τὸν φόξφον αἰτοῦντι. Τέλος properly denotes the tax 
charged upon goods, φόξος and χκῆνσος (Matt. xvii. 25.) that upon per- 
sons and property. ‘I'he words are often, however, interchanged. 
Φόρος and τιμή are both due to those who are set over us, zuuq to 
those who are not. ᾿ 

V. 8. Even the concluding words of the previous verse, had no 
longer any very special reference to magistrates, and now St. Paul 
passes over to a subject which is altogether general. He means to 
show that true and vital charity is the best instructress in all our du- 
ties. He connects this thought ingeniously with the preceding con- 
text, by the admonition not to leave any duty altogether unfulfilled, 
except that of love, which in its whole extent we never can fulfil. 
On these words, Augustine (Ep. 62. ad Coelest,) admirably says: 
Semper debeo caritatem que sola etiam reddita semper detinet debi- 
torem. Redditur enim cum impenditur, debetur autem etiam si red- 
dita fuerit, quia nullum erat tempus quando impendenda jam non, sit, 
nec cum redditur amittitur, sed potius reddendo multiplicatur. 
Habendo enim redditur non carendo. Et cum reddi non possit nisi 
habeatur, nec haberi possit nisi reddatur, imo jam cum redditur ab 
homine, crescit in homine, et tanto major acquiritur quanto pluribus 
redditur. 

ὃ yae ἀγαπὼν κτλ. All transgression proceeds from self-love, which 
consists in opposition to the love of God, for his own sake, and of 
our neighbour for God’s. Love is the emptying of self, and the 
taking another in; consequently it is the total annihilation of selfish- 
ness, and, therefore, also the fulfilment of all the commandments 
Gal. v.14. Mat. xxii. 39,40. 1Tim.1.5. Jas. i. 8. 

V. 9. ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν and συγχεφαλαιοῦν mean, ““ ἴο add several num- 
bers together,”’ and hence, ‘‘ to comprehend several things in one.” 

V. 10. As πληξοῦν in the New Testament, signifies to fulfil a 
command, so does x27eaua also signify, accomplishment, the perfect 
observance. Of the same kind are the predicates which love re- 
ceives, 1 Tim. i. 5, and Jas. ii. 8. R. Akibha in like manner styled 
the commandment, Lev. xix. 8. 9737 779, the great summary. 
Chrysostom: Thus then shall we love one another, and thus, him 
who has most loved us, that is God. Among men, love is full of 
jealousy, and demands a return of love to itself alone. God’s 


* Why is it, that because I do not please to live according to the precepts 
of certain men, I am hated as a most impure person? +Does the king com- 
mand me to pay tribute? I am ready to supply it. Does my master require 
me to serve and obey him? I submit andserve him. For man is to be 
honoured as man, but God alone is to be feared. 


CHAPTER Xill. v. 10,11, 12. 413 


language, however, is: Let me strive with thee which shall love men 
the most. ‘The greater thy love for them, the more dost thou thereby 
love me.” 

V.11. The Apostle adds a weighty reason for Christians showing 
zeal in love. Every day brings the present temporal economy 
nearer to its close, at which Christ shall appear, and, therefore, the 
Christian ought to become proportionally more serious in his walk. 

xa’ φοῦτο, is well expounded by Theodoret: χαὺ μάλιστα, as in the 
Latin, idque. ‘There is an entirely corresponding passage in Heb. 
x. 25, where, in the same way an admonition is urged by the motive 
of the speedy appearing of Christ: χαὺ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον, ὅσῳ βλέπετε 
ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέξαν. 

εἰδέναι, Means here, fo reflect, ponder, as at Acts xxiii. 5. 

dea is tantamount to χαιφός. 

Sleep, the state of total torpor, and darkness of the understanding, 
is often used by the Apostle, (1 Thess. v. 6. 1 Cor. xv. 84. Eph.v. 
14), as image of the life without Christ. This protracted night, 
which brooded over the globe, became dawn at Christ’s appearing 
on the earth, and will be clearly day-light when he appears again.’ 
(In other passages, where merely the walk of Christ’s church ts 
contrasted with that of the world, it is directly said that the disciples 
of Christ have come from darkness into the light, Eph. v. 8, 11. 
1 Pet. ii. 9. John iii. 20,21.) We might compare the phrase taken 
from the Rabbins, ‘the ruddy dawn of the Messias,”’ which they 
apply to the period of his appearing, mw bw 1703, Jalkut Schimeoni, 
Th. ii. f. 26. Schittgen, Hore ii. 667. From the day when the 
faithful first assembled around their Messias, until the date of this 
Epistle, a series of years had elapsed; the full day-break, as Paul 
deemed, was already close at hand. We find here corroborated, what 
is also evident from several other passages, (Phil. iv. 5. 1 Thess. v. 
6. Heb. x. 25,37. Rev. xxii. 12), that the Apostles expected the 
speedy advent of the Lord.. The reason of this lay, partly in the 
general law, that man is fond to imagine the object of his hope at 
hand, partly in the circumstance, that the Saviour had often delivered 
the admonition, to be every moment prepared for the crisis in ques- 
tion, (Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13. Luke xxi. 34—36), and had also, 
according to the usus loquendi of the prophets, who speak of the 
judgments and blessings of God as hastening on, (Is. xlvi. 18; li. 5; 
Ix. 22. Rev. i. 1; xxii. 6, 7, 12, 20), described the period as fast 
approaching, Matt. xxiv. 29. , 

V.12, ἡμέρα does not-here stand for ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου, but is used 
figuratively. ‘The meaning is: The shades of sin and of misery, 
which encompass us anterior to Christ’s appearing, will soon cease. 
Already the day begins, as it were, to break, and to chase them 
away. We ought, therefore, to wear the kind of armour which is 
suitable to the light of day. At the time when Christ our Lord ap- 
pears, all will be holiness and love; it becomes us then, even now, 
to take up such arms. 


* ‘ 


414 CHAPTER Xill. v. 13, 14. 


V.13. In the day time one is ashamed to practise wantonness and 
open sin, (Erasmus: Nox pudore vacat.) ‘The majority of exposi- 
tors, accordingly, Theodoret, Pelagius and others, give as Paul’s 
meaning: ‘‘ Let us not yield ourselves any more to sin, as formerly, 
under the protection of night, we deemed that we might do; but let 
us abstain from open sins, as if we lived only in the clear day light.” 
This meaning, however, is very feeble. We do better to take ἡμέρα 
figuratively, as designating the moral kingdom of light. Evidences of 
the licentious manners of the heathen here adverted to by Paul, are to 
be found in Meiners, Ueber den verfall der Sitten der Rimer. Con- 
trast the noble pictures of Christian temperance in earthly enjoyment, 
hallowed wherever it takes place, by elevating the soul to things 
heavenly, through spiritual converse and hymns, See Tertullian, 
Apolog. 6. 39; compare Minutius Felix, Octav. c. 12. § 5, 6. As 
the natural man only sees what, among his pleasures, Christians 
want, but does not know the new enjoyments they secretly taste, 
when the heathen, Ceecilius here paints their abstinence, to his eyes 
so mournful, and pities them for their joyless life, he adds: Ita nee 
resurgitis miseri, nec interim vivitis. 

V.14. Notwithstanding that ἐνδύεσθαί τινα directly signifies, even 
in Greek, to imitate any one, it is more probable that Paul here uses 
it after the Hebrew, where w39, in a figurative sense, means fo be 
wholly filled with any thing. Paul, accordingly, exhorts to a close 
communion of soul with Christ. ‘The same expression is to be 
found, Gal. iil. 27. Sae§ is here like σῶμα. So does Josephus, 
Archeol. 1. xvill. c. 18, § 8, say: τξέπεσθαυ ἐπὶ τὴν συνήθη τοῦ σώματος 
MEOVOLAVs 


CHAPTER FOURTEENTH. 


ARGUMENT. 


Admonitions addressed to the Gentile converts not to behave haughtily, but 
with affectionate forbearance towards those of Jewish extraction, who 
entertained scruples about many things which to them were innocent. 
Every one ought to seek to be firmly established in his convictions. 


V..1. In the explanation of this chapter, there arises first, the ques- 
tion, What description of persons were the weak believers of whom 
the Apostle speaks through the whole of it? ‘The common opinion, 
which also first suggests itself to the mind, is, that they were Jewish 
converts, who had brought along with them from Judaism into Chris- 
tianity an anxious tenderness of conscience. Moreover, according 
to Clemens Alexandrinus and Augustine, this timid scrupulosity 
applied merely to the use of the flesh that was left over from the 
Heathen sacrifices. On the other hand, Chrysostom, Origen, 'Theo- 
doret and Jerome, suppose it comprehended all the kinds of food 
forbidden in the law. ‘The most correct way is not to separate be- 
twixt these two, inasmuch as a conscientious Jewish Christian, who 
was scrupulous in the one point, was likely to be so likewise in the 
other. From ver. 5, we see that this party also held certain days as 
sacred, which were so esteemed by the Jew. A similar controversy, 
and with similar arms, is maintained by the Apostle, 1 Cor. viii. It 
is, however, another supposition as. to the weak believers here de- 
scribed, that they were Jewish converts of an ascetical turn of mind, 
who, in a special endeavour after purity, had, even under Judaism, 
given up eating all kinds of flesh whatsoever. ‘This explanation is 
found so early as the days of Pelagius, among some whom Erasmus 
confutes; and, among moderns, it has been defended by Koppe and 
Hichhorn, (Einleit. ins. N. T. Bd. iii. 5. 222.) There can be no 
doubt, certainly, that, at the time of Christ, there were many seriously 
disposed persons among the Greeks and Romans, as well as Jews, 
who laboured to attain a special degree of purity, and abstained from 
the use of flesh in general. Among the Heathen, such ascetical 
views were propagated by the new Pythagorean school, which 
flourished in those days; while, among the Jews, not only had the 
Essenes bound themselves to abstain from flesh, but this had been 
done by other Jews following the same rigid maxims. Josephus, 
for instance, (in Vita sua, c. 3,) mentions certain pious priests who 


416. CHAPTER Χιν.ν. ]. 


fed solely on figs and dates. In like manner, Banus the pious ascetic, 
once the master of Josephus, ate no food but what was supplied by the ᾿ 
vegetable kingdom, in Vita Jos. 6. 2. In fact, even among Chris- 
tians, as early as the first age, we find notice taken of pious ascetics 
of the kind. Origen, c. Cels. 1. v. ὁ, 49, speaks of some living in 
his time. In the Canones Apost., Canon L., a distinction is drawn 
betwixt the clergy who, from ascetical considerations, shunned the 
use of flesh and wine, and those who esteemed the use of them as 
actually sinful, and the latter are condemned. ‘There is likewise 
mention made of a rigid Christian ascetic, in Marcus Aurelius’ time, 
among the martyrs. (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1, v. 6. 8.) He was, 
however, prevailed upon by other Christians to taste with thankfulness 
the gifts vouchsafed by God. Clemens Alexr. Pedag. |. ii. p. 148, 
ed. Sylb., relates, that the Apostle Matthew belonged to the class of 
ascetics. 

Notwithstanding all this, however, it is not likely that St. Paul’s 
polemics are here directed against such a party. The party of whom 
he speaks are characterized as weak in the faith, so that the others 
looked proudly down upon them. But this was not the case with 
these ascetics. Not only were they,.so far from being despised, 
regarded by Greeks and Jews with wonder and astonishment, as 
men of a superior order, but, among Christians, they were likewise 
looked upon as persons who gave themselves more than usual con- 
cern to practise a faithful imitation of Christ. On the other hand, it 
never occurred to those ascetics to condemn others for not choosing 
so rigid a mode of life as theirs; they rather believed that but few 
were called to it. In fine, were he here speaking of ascetics, never, 
certainly, would Paul address the opposite party with admonitions 
to forbearance and gentleness. He would, on the contrary, attack 
the ascetics themselves, and severely blame them for condemning 
others, or upbraid them generally with assigning a particular worth 
to their mode of life: Just as, in the Epistle to the Colossians, ii. 21 
—23, he speaks with stern decision against haughty self-righteous 
ascetical practices. If Paul had had imaginary ascetics before his 
eyes, he would certainly have attacked the source of their disposi- 
tions, and not enlarged upon their outward circumstances. 

ἀσθενὴς τῇ more. ‘The like expression is found, 1 Cor. viii. 11, 
—12. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 22, on the same subject. The Gentile 
could have no scruples at St. Paul’s doctrine, to wit, that we are to 
enjoy all that God has made with gratitude to the giver. In the case 
of the Jew, however, a longer experience in the Christian faith was 
required, in order gradually to become established in the conviction, 
that he had now nothing more to do with the law. If, then, a choice. 
is to be made betwixt two evils, it is better, through misjudging faith- 
fulness, to admit a scruple, than, with daring levity, to overleap every 
restraint. Hence it is that St. Paul treats these weak brethren with 
so much affection and tenderness. 

προσλαμβάνεσθαν means here to admit into intercourse, which is, 


CHAPTER XIv. v. 1, 2, 3. 417 


however, ex adjuncto, equivalent to, to treat kindly, take a concern 
in any one. Compare chapter xv. 7. We have the same verb used 
in the same way by the LXX. Ps. lxv. 4; Ixxiii. 24. 1 Sam. xii. 2. 
In the latter Greek, also, πφοσλαμβάνειν appears to have signitied 
directly, to treat with indulgence or kindness. In Lucian, De non 
eredendo calumn. ὁ. 17, Ρ. 147, ed. Reiz. T. iii. We find the pass- 
age: ὑπολαμβάνοντες οἱ χόλαχες τὴν μειρακιώδη τοῦ ᾿Αλεξάνδξου ἐπιθυ- 
μίαν. Here ὑπολαμβάνοντες clearly means fo be indulgent, to flatter. 
Now the Scholiast expounds it by πεοσλαμβάνειν. Krebs will have 
it taken as tantamount to ἀναλαμβάνω, and this, in the sense, fo im- 
prove, alter the tone, in which case we would have to compare Gal. 
vi. 1. ‘That sense of ἀναλαμβάνω is, however, linked to the preposi- 
tion ἀνά; which imparts to several verbs the signification of improve- 
ment. (See Wyttenbach Comm. in Plut. T. vi. P. I. p. 76.) Cer- 
tainly not in the spirit of the love either of Jesus or Paul, does Calov 
on this passage, combat the Lutherans, who adduced it as a proof 
that none of their party ought to accuse a Calvinist of heresy. Calov 
entertains the opposite opinion, viz. that he ought not even to salute 
him, according to 2 John v. 10. 

μὴ εἰς διαχείσεις διαλογισμῶν may be explained in a threefold way. 
Avaxeive means fo judge, according to which the expression might 
mean, ‘not to judging of the thoughts;”’ so that the Apostle would 
prohibit judging. So Chrysostom, Augustine, Grotius and others. 
In the Hellenistic, however, the middle Scaxevveodae περί revos signifies 
to dispute about any thing, which would make the sense: ‘So as 
to contend about (immaterial) opinions.” Or διακχεξίνεσθανυ may sig- 
nify to be doubtful, and then διάκεισις would mean the scruple. 
Under seruple, however, might be implied, that of the weak in faith, 
who is disquieted in his conscience, or that of the strong in faith, as 
to whether he ought to acknowledge the other for a brother. In this 
latter way it is taken by the Syrian, Chr. Schmid and Koppe; in 
the former by Luther, Cocceius, Bengel and many others. Indispu- 
tably, it agrees best with the connection to translate: ‘* In order that 
the other may not be doubtful in his own convictions, without, how- 
ever, possessing sufficient power of faith to follow yours.” In this 
case, ver. 23, is illustrative. Acaroyecuo’ must be taken in its general 
sense of thoughts. We have farther to remark, that Paul expresses 
himself concisely. The εἰς denotes the consequence, ‘that there 
may not thence arise.” Compare 6, 2. 6. vi. 19. 

V. 2. This verse is particularly urged in support of their opinion, 
by those who think that ascetics are here meant. It is likewise easy, 
however, to apply the words to the social feasts of Christians, at 
which the Jewish converts preferred abstaining altogether from meats 
of flesh, being afraid of eating what was unclean. 

V. 3. xeway is again equivalent to xavaxevveew. By the fact that 
the person of weak faith has received forgiveness of his sins, and 
therewith peace with God, God has acknowledged him as his own, 

53 


418 CHAPTER XIv. v. 4, 5, 6. 


and vouchsafed him mercy. How then should man wish to ito 
greater severity than God? 

V. 4. Στήχω and πίπτω ‘to keep one’s ground, 1]. 11. 348, aha to 
fall,”’ used figuratively with reference to faith. ‘This also implies, 
‘to be acquitted, declared righteous before the court, and to be con- 
demned.’”” We may compare the images frequently occurring in 
the Psalms, of standing and falling, and being upheld by God. Ps. 
xl. 3; ἵν]. 14; exvi. 8; xxxi.9. ‘The dative is the dative of judging. 
Winer 3te Aufl. s. 175. 

δυνατὸς yae κτλ. God can impart to him ability, and as supreme 
Judge, declare, that he may enter the kingdom of Christ, even 
though he should possess that weak faith, and men pronounce him 
on account of it, rejected. Chrysostom: Οὐ yde ἐπεὶ ἄξια τοῦ μὴ xedveo~ 
θαυ mover, διὰ τοῦτο κελεύω μὴ KELVAL, ἀλλ᾽ ἑπεὶ ἀλλότειός ἔστιν οὐχέτης: τοῦτ᾽ 
ἔστιν οὐ σὸς GAAG τοῦ Θεοῦ" εἶταυ παξαμυθούμενος αὐτὸν πάλιν, οὐκ εἶπέεν, OTE 
πίπτει; ἀλλὰ τί; στήκχει ἢ πίπτει. ἂν δὲ τοῦτο ἂν δὲ ἐκεῖνο ἢ. τῷ δεσπότῃ 
διαφέξευ ταῦτοα....««φαῦτα δὲ; εἰ μὴ τὸν σκοπόν πάλιν Tov ἸΤαύλου κατίδωμεν; 
βουλομένου μὴ MEd καιφοὺ τοῦ πδοσήκοντος ἐπυφιμᾶσθαν αὐτοὺς» opodea ἂν- 
ἄξια τῶν Χεριστιανὼν τῆς κηδεμονίας ἐστίν. ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ ἀεὶ Aéyws τὴν 
γνώμην ἐξετάζειν δεῖ μεθ᾽ ἧς λέγει. ἢ 

V. 5. Here it is clearly seen that Paul is speaking of scrupulous 
Judaists unable to renounce the Sabbath, the new moon and other 
Jewish holidays, (Col. ii. 16. Gal. iv. 10.) In a way altogether 
forced, Koppe explains: ‘Some believed that it was their duty to 
abstain only on certain days from eating flesh.”” Now, to refer this 
declaration to ascetics, we would require to suppose that the days 
were determined horoscopically. As is commonly the case, xaed in 
a comparison denotes the preference. Κρίνειν might here both times 
be taken in the sense fo select, 2 Mac. xiii. 15. Joseph. Archeol. 
1. XI. ὁ. 3,§ 10. πληξόφοξεῦν in profane authors also signifies to fill 
up, thoroughly convince. 

V. 6. Φεονεῦν, which properly means to take a thing into con- 
sideration, has here the signification of παξατηρεῖν, which is what 
stands in the parallel passage, Gal. iv. 10. 

evyaevorecy May, in the narrower sense, relate to the grace at meat, 
which was common among the Jews, and hence also among the early 
Christians, (1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. Justin Mar. Apol. Tertullian, Apolo- 
geticus), or generally in the wider, to the thankful disposition of the 
person eating. ‘The meaning of the passage is, that the external act 
is neither good nor bad; all depends upon the disposition. 


ἘΠῚ do not command you to abstain from judging, on the ground, that he 
does things which ought not to be judged, but because he is another’s servant, 
z. 6. not thine, but God’s. Then encouraging him again, he does not say he 
falleth, but what? he standeth or falleth. “But as to whether the one or the 
other happen, that concerns the Lord. Now these things, unless we again 
overlook the scope of Paul, who wishes them not to be teproved before the 
proper time, are altogether unworthy the regard of Christians. But as I 
always say, itis necessary to examine the view with which he speaks. 


CHAPTER XIv, v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 419 


V. 7. The Christian lives no longer according to his own good 
pleasure; he has become a servant of Christ, (Rom. vi. 18.) Hence 
whatsoever he undertakes he weighs in his Master’s sight, and if in 
doing so he experience no reproach of conscience, he is in circum- 
stances to act without temptation. 
| Ζῇν τινί means likewise among the Greeks, fo live with a constant 
reference or regard to any one. See c. vi. 10. Even his death, 
the most important event that can befall him, is viewed by the Chris- 
tian not merely in its bearing upon himself, but likewise upon his 
Master. Of this Paul gives us a fine example, Phil. i. 23, 25. 

V. 8. A great, and to the natural man a strange thought! In his 
whole being, the subject of redemption makes the Saviour the centre 
of all his movements, the mark to which his will points. 

sivas τινός “10 depend upon or appertain to any one, inasmuch as 
our whole being has a bearing upon him.”? Compare 2 Tim. ii. 19. 

V. 9. According to the evidence, both external and internal, ἀνέστη 
is to be considered a gloss upon the unusual term ἔζησεν as may be 
inferred from the third reading ἀνέζησεν which also illustrates ἔζησε. 
The xav before ἀπέθανε is, on similar grounds, to be held spurious, 
and as originating solely in consequence of the gloss ἀνέστη. Ζῇν 
might certainly signify fo rise again, as in Hebrew, simples often 
stand where we should put compounds. It would better accord with 
Paul’s doctrinal system, however, were we here to understand ζῇν, in 
the emphatic sense, of the Saviour’s state of exaltation. ‘Christ, in his 
humiliation, died on that account, and has onee for all attained to the 
life of glory and exaltation.” Compare Rom. vi. 10. Since the 
completion of the work of redemption, Christ is the lord of all who 
are admitted into the divine kingdom, and this not only during their 
pilgrimage tpon earth, but even beyond the grave, (τῶν vexeay). 

V. 10. The first σύ refers to the weak in faith, the second, to the 
Gentile converts. If Christ be indeed our master, it is not for us to 
exclude from the kingdom of God, brethren who only deviate in 
non-essentials, before he has sat in judgment. 

V. 11, 12. To corroborate the general truth, that God will judge 
every man, Paul founds it upon a quotation from the old Testament, 
Is. xlv. 23. 

V. 13. He urges still farther his demands upon the strong in faith. 
Hitherto he had only wished to persuade the two parties not mutually 
to condemn each other. Now, however, he asks of the strong in 
faith, that for their weaker brethren’s sake, they should not do a 
thing which might be in itself indifferent, even though they felt free 
in their own minds to do it. For instance, when they observed that 
their eating the flesh of sacrifices, or any thing soever which seemed 
to have been prohibited, gave their brethren pain or offence, they 
were rather to deny themselves such an adiaphoron. ‘The disposition 
which Paul evinces in these exhortations, proves what a mighty in- 
fluence the Christian faith had had in making him indulgent and: 
humble, for if we reflect upon his natural character, we can well 


420 CHAPTER XIv. v. 13, 14, 15, 16. 


suppose, that he would have been more disposed to. kindle into anger 
at the weak and scrupulous, and to treat them with severity. But 
the spirit of Christ had taught him to be weak with the weak, so 
that, 1 Cor. viii. 13, he says, ‘‘ Wherefore if meat make my brother 
to offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth, lest I make 
my brother to offend.’ And in the Christian church, which is never 
but composed of those who bear, and of those who are borne, this is 
the only way in which the bond of perfectness and of peace can sub- 
sist, to wit, when the child aspires to manhood, and the man becomes 
achild. Such mutual subordination and forbearance is a salutary 
medicine for pride. 

Κείνατε. An antanaclasis. Keiyew means here, to propose to 
one’s self or resolve. So Acts xvi. 15; xx. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 37, and 
frequently. 

V. 14. πέπεισμαυ ἐν xveva. The Christian is susceptible of a higher 
degree of conviction than the natural man. In the light of a superior 
illumination, truths may become certain to him, as soon as he per- 
ceives them in the consciousness of his fellowship with Christ. 

xowos the impure, Acts x. 14, 28; xi. 18, in antithesis to Gy.os, 
what is set apart. 

V. 15. Λυπεῖν τινά to distress any one. ᾿Απόλλυε. There isa 
double exposition of this word. 1. ’Amoaavecr, like the Latin per- 
dere, for cruciari. In Aristophanes for instance, we find ἀπολοῦμαι 
so used, Nub. v. 790. ἀπολῶ, Plutus, v. 65, 68, also ἀπολεῖς με. So 
Elsner. 2. ᾿Απολλύευν may be taken ἀφοσμητυκῶς, and this also ina 
twofold manner. Paul may mean to say: When thou repellest thy 
brother by thy harsh blame, he becomes perplexed about Christianity 
altogether, and cleaving, as he does, so strongly to the observance of 
the law, relapses again into Judaism. So do Theophylact, Gicume- 
nius, Grotius, Taylor and others understand the passage. Paul may 
likewise, however, mean to say:. Seduce him not into eating contrary 
to his conscience, thereby incurring the sentence of God, inasmuch 
as whatsoever is done contrary to conscience is sin. So Origen, 
Theodoret, Bengel, Limborch and many others. This latter view is 
confirmed, 1 Cor. viii. 11, and Rom. xiv. 20. The die οὗ, κτλ. is 
added by Paul, for the purpose of showing how little this would be 
imitating Christ; he having died for. that very soul, for whose sake 
it is refused to remove a little scandal out of the way. 

V. 16. ᾿Αγαθόν is by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Eras- 
mus and others, explained generally of the Christian religion, which 
is slandered, when men fall into disputes about such trifles. Origen, 
Pelagius, Theodoret, Bengel and Clarius take it more correctly in 
the narrower sense, and expound it of that spiritual freedom enjoyed 
by the strong in faith, which was a great blessing, but of which they 
might be deprived, or which might at least be slandered, unless they 
manifested love and prudence in the use of it. This meaning ad- 
mirably suits the connection, and at 1 Cor. x. 29, 30, Paul expresses 
himself to the same effect. 


"9 


CHAPTER XIv. Vv. 17, 18,19, 20. 421 


V. 17. Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ Stands here subjectively, and denotes the 
life of man therein. To the same effect is 1 Cor. iv. 20. In oppo- 
sition to the Judaizers, Paul maintains that prescribed external ob- 
servances do not procure an entrance into the kingdom of heaven, nor 
make out our belonging to, or connection with it. In opposition 
again to the haughty Gentile converts, he maintains that in joining 
in the.observance of certain outward customs indifferent in them- 
selves, they did not thereby break their connection with Christ and 
believers. His doctrine, accordingly is, that outward forms and 
observances avail neither to estrange man from Christianity, nor yet 
to approximate to it. Where the Spirit reigns, there does freedom 
dwell. But where does the Spirit reign, and where alone can a 
claim te such freedom be advanced? It reigns wherever the follow- 
ing qualities are to be found, the δικαιοσύνην the, εἰρήνη and the yaed, 
by which it is manifested whether a man inwardly and truly belongs 
to the kingdom of Christ. Supposing a man not to belong to it in 
this way, the divine freedom spoken of does not exist for him. ‘The 
ἐν πνεύματι may be referred to the yagd, or to all the three qualities. 
In the first case, it serves specially to distinguish the mild inward 
cheerfulness of the Christian from the impure jollity of the natural 
man. Acxacoovry, holiness. Where these qualities exist within the 
_ breast, no more regard is paid to outward forms. 

VY. 18. As man, in virtue of his natural affinity to God, perceives 
that the moral condition produced by Christianity is the aim towards 
which the development of the species tends, he cannot avoid acknow- 
ledging these fruits of Christian faith. 

V.19. Εἰξήνη is here to be understood of the amicable and harmo- 
nious behaviour which had been previously speken of. The word 
οἰχοδομή is to be explained, from that image so common to the 
Apostles, according to which they compare a spiritual walk to a 
building which gradually improves in firmness. It is accordingly 
equivalent to τὸ ovupégov, as the Greek expositors explain it. One 
Christian ought to seek to promote the spiritual growth of another. 

V. 20. Καταλύειν used in reference to the oixodouz, means fo pull 
down, destroy. "Eeyov Θεοῦ denotes the working of God in the hearts 
of men. Just as in other passages, 1 Cor. ix. 1, Paul styles the be- 
lieving Corinthians Zeyoy μου ἐν Κυρίῳ. ‘The spiritually-minded Chris- 
tian is hence also called, in virtue of the power of God which has 
operated upon him, οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. ri. 9. This work of God 
is hindered by the strong in faith, when he unsettles the conscience. 
Chrysostom: τὸ ἔξγον τοὺ Θεοῦ. τὴν σωτηξίαν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ οὕτω καλῶν, 
καὺ ἐπυφθείνων τὸν Φόβον, xai δεικνὺς Ore τοὐναντίον τοῦ <eyov τὸν Θεοῦ; ov 
σπουδάζει, ποιεῖ. οὐ γὰφ μόνον οὐκ οἰχοδομεῖς» φησιν; ὃ νομίζεις, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ χαταλύευς, καὶ οὐκοδομὴν οὖκ ἀνθεωπίνην, ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ, χαὺ οὐδὲ μεγᾷ- 
λου τινὸς ἕνεχεν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος εὐτελοῦς. Upon the dca before πεοσ- 
χόμματος, 566 6. li. 27. 


* Calling by this name the salvation of a brother, and augmenting fear, by 
showing that he does the contrary of the work of God at which he aims. For 


422 CHAPTER XIv. V. 21, 22, 23, 24. 


V.21. Compare 1 Cor. viii. Codd. A. C. 67, the Syriac, Arabie, 
and Koptie Versions, Origen and Augustine omit σχανδαλίζεταν ἢ 
ἀσθενεῖ. And, in point of fact, it stands here so idly as to appear 
nothing but a double gloss upon xeocxonres. εὐ 

V.22. Σὺ πίστιν κτλ. Chrysostom: Θέλευς μου Seca Ore τέλειος εἶν 
μὴ ἐμοὶ δείκνυε, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφχεύτω τὸ ovverdos.* Pelagius: Sic manduca ut 
nemo tuo infirmetur exemplo. Μακχάξιος xra. Chrysostom: πάλιν 
τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα πλήττειν καὶ δείκνυσι τούτῳ ἀξκοῦντα στέφανον; τὸν τοῦ 
συνειδότος.ἷ ; 

V.23. This passage must be expounded in connection with the 
preceding context. Only in proportion to the measure of our know- 
ledge respecting any thing to be left undone, are we chargeable with 
guilt. He who is not convinced that this or that action or omission 
is sin, may safely dg, or leave it undone. It must not, however, be 
overlooked, that it may be guilt on a man’s part, when he is deficient 
in knowledge. 

V.24. The last three verses of chapter xvi. belong to this place. 
They occupy it in the Codex Alexr., and 106 Codd. Minuse., in the 
majority of the Greek Fathers, the Syriac and Arabic. ‘They stand 
at the end of the letter in the Cod. Vat., 3 Uncial Codd., some Codd. 
Minusce., and in the Latin Fathers. Doubtless, they intimate the 
close of the Epistle; and, doubtless, the beginning of chapter xv. 
seems to connect itself immediately with the end of chapter xiv. Sup- 
posing, however, the verses to have originally stood at the end of 
the Epistle, it is impossible to conceive how they should have been 
transferred to the end of the 14th chapter. There is hence more 
likelihood in the supposition, that St. Paul intended here to terminate 
the letter, but that he afterwards felt himself urged to resume a sub- 
ject which lay so near his heart, and so appended the 15th chapter. 

The dat. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ has no verb. ‘There is here an ἀνακόλου- 
gov, inasmuch as St. Paul had in view a doxology to the Father, but 
gives it, 6. xvi. ver. 27, to the Son. We have, accordingly, to sup- 
ply, δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 

Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου κτλ. Κατά here denotes the occasion, so 
that it is equivalent to through, just like the χατὰ Θεόν, (see on Viil. 
27.) ‘by divine dispensation”’ of the Classics, among whom, it pro- 
perly signifies ‘in consequence of,’’ and intimates the way and 
manner, at the same time hkewise expressing the effect. Others, 
‘*as my message confirms,”’ or ‘‘ faith upon the gospel.” ᾿Ιησοῦ is 
best taken as gen. objecti, “ through the gospel of the Mediator, and 
my message concerning it, ye may be strengthened.” 

xara ἀποχάχυψιν may be co-ordinated with the preceding χαρά. 


not only do you not build up the work of God, which is what you intend to 
do, but you destroy, and that a building not of man, but of God, and not for the 
sake of something great, but of a contemptible matter. 

* Do you wish to show me that you are perfect? Do not show it to me, 
but let the consciousness of it suffice you. 

+ Again he strikes at the weak disciple, and shows that this crown is 
enough for him, viz. that of conscience. 


‘@ 


CHAPTER XIv. v. 24, 25, 26, 27. 423 


But it is more suitably subordinated by the ancient expositors. ‘The 
Apostle frequently reverts with pleasure to the thought that, even 
prior to the commencement of this earthly economy, God had pro- 
jected the plan of the redemption, with a reference to which all was 
accordingly arranged. He represents this plan, however, as one 
that had been kept secret—only the prophets, perchance, knowing 
any thing of it—no human being, having, of himself, anticipated 
such a method of obtaining for man redemption and glory. Col. i. 
26; 11.2. Eph. vi. 19. 1 Pet. 1. 20. ἐ 

V. 25, 26. The Apostle had certainly proposed to contrast the 
pt of Christ’s appearing, which first made manifest the plan of 
Salvation, absolutely with the earlier period. Remembering, how- 
ever, the Old Testament prophecy, by which that plan had been 
foreknown and declared, he appends with the τέ, in some Codd. im- 
properly omitted, the testimony of the yeapai neopyrixoi. ‘The xar’ 
ἐπυταγὴν is better referred to φανερωθέντος. ‘The predicate αἰώνιος has 
certainly not been used here unintentionally. It intimates that, in 
all his arrangements for mankind, God remains eternally the same, 
eternally like himself. Eis πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωφισθέντος. The presenti- 
ment and prediction of the mighty scheme of salvation was entrusted 
to but one people—the realizing of it belongs to the whole race. 

V.27. The thought that God had, from all eternity, arranged the 
scheme, and the whole course of its fulfilment, was very naturally 
ealeulated to lead the Apostle to the reflection, how little short-sighted 
man is able to penetrate into its fitness; and in this way he comes to 
give to God, as he here does, the predicate of the only-wise. 


CHAPTER FIFTEENTH. ~~ 


ARGUMENT. 7 


Reiterated exhortation to concord betwixt the believers of weak, and those 
of strong faith. Paul speaks of his Apostolical office, of his pon 
and the journey in which he proposes to visit the Romans. ᾿ 


V.1. What the Apostle had said of the relation betwixt the strong 
and the weak in faith, appeared to him still insufficient. Accordingly, 
although he had terminated the Epistle, he appends an addition. 

δυνατός Means, even among profane authors, one able or mighty, 
and is, in every respect, equivalent to δείνος. We find it conjoined 
with ἐν rey καὶ λόγῳ; Luke xxiv. 19. Acts vii. ver. 22. It here 
amounts to 6 σφοδρὸς τὴν πίστιν. It is again used with respect to 
faith, 2 Cor. xiii. 19. As the Homeric fight is composed of the van- 
quished and the victorious, so is Christ’s church, of them who bear 
and them who are borne. Paul’s own example, in the case before 
us, may be learned from 1 Cor. ix. 22. 

ἀρέσκειν φυνύ is “ probari alicui, to force approbation from any one.’ 
Hence, ἀρέσκειν ἑαυτῷ means fo live so as to please oneself, to  llow 
one’s own wishes. In ASschylus, Prom. Vinct. ver. 186, we read: 
nae’ ἑαυτῷ δίκαιον ἔχων Ζεύς» on which the Scholiast observes: πάντα 
δικαίως οἰόμενος ποιεῖν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἀρέσχων χαὶ δίκαιον νομίζων εἴναζ 
ὅπερ ἂν βούληται πράττειν. Compare 1 Cor. χ. 38. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 
Gal. i. 10. ‘True love produces such self-denial, because it is only 
in some other being that she lives. 

V.2. But this living to please another ought constantly to aim 
at the ἀγαθόν, which ἀγαθόν, however, consists in the οἰχοδομή, when, 
by so bearing a brother’s burden, his spiritual condition is promoted. 
See Paul’s example, 1 Cor. ix. 19; x.33. For there is a false deéo- 
xeva towards men, on whose account this word is sometimes, in pro- 
fane authors, equivalent to xorxaxeia. (‘Theoph., Charact. VI.) 

V.3. The Saviour, who came, not to be ministered unto, but to 
minister, is, in respect of this relation also, a model to believers. The. 
Old ‘Testament passage is from Ps. Ixix. 9, on which compare the 
observations made at ὁ. xi. 9. Christ undertook all he did in God’s 
cause; and hence he lived not to please himself. 

V.4. Paul means to show, that if the Old Testament does not 
yield instruction bearing directly upon the conversation of the Chris- 


CHAPTER xv. v. 4—8. 425 


tian, much of it may nevertheless be used for that end. In this way, 
the passage which applies immediately to David, and in its higher 
sense to Christ, may serve for direction to the Christian how to 
walk so as to please God. The xeo is partic. temp. 

If we connect διὰ τῆς ὑπόμονῆς with τῆς nagaxagoews, then the ὑπο- 
μονὴ καὶ παξάχλησις τὼν γεαφὼν are the patience and quietness of 
mind which are imparted by the reading of the Scriptures, without 
its being needful to suppose, with Theodoret and many others, that 
the ὑπομονή involves a direct allusion to the examples of steadfast- 
ness recorded in the word. Other expositors, as for instance Eras- 
mus and Ammon, wish to connect the διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς with ἐλπίδα 
ἔχωμεν, and doubtless this construction has somewhat to recommend 
it. ‘The ἐλπίς is here the confident cutlook to the glorious end of all 
trouble. 

V.5. God here receives a name from his operations, as at ver. 13, 
33. 1Thess.v.23. The Apostle, in this manner, leads us back 
again to his subject, from which the observation in ver. 4 had brought 
him away. Κατὰ Χριστόν. CXicumenius: ᾿Επειδὴ to καὺ ἐπὺ κακῷ 
ἀγάπη ἐπάγεν κατὰ Χειστόν."Σ ‘The κατά then denotes the object of 
concord. But Theodoret expounds more correctly: Δυδάσχευ ὡς οὐκ 
hogloras αὐτοὺς τὴν ὁμόνοιαν γενέσθαι προσεύχεται» ἀλλὰ τὴν εὐσεβή συμ- 
guviar αἰτεῖ. ‘The spirit of Christ ought to be the animating princi- 
ple of unity. 

V.6. The noble consequence of that concord is, that the whole 
church, like a fraternal choir, gives praise to God. 

V.7. On πεοσλαμβάνεσθε; See our observations, c. xiv. 1. “Yuas, in 
place of the more usual ἡμᾶς» is the reading in AC DE FG. δόξα 
Θεοῦ is eternal blessedness, Heb. ii. 10. Rom. ν. 2. 1Pet.v.4. The 
argument is the same as atc. xiv.3. Has Christ, without distinction, 
been so gracious to us, then shall we, receiving all things as we do 
through grace alone, make no scruple to show ourselves humble and . 
condescending to our brethren? 

V.8. Paul specifies in how gracious a manner Christ actually had 
introduced Jews and Gentiles into the kingdom of God, the former, 
inasmuch as the promises once vouchsafed to them were fulfilled, 
and the latter, inasmuch as, although they themselves did not receive 
the promises, they yet obtained a share in their fulfilment. ‘Thus, 
both races have reason to regard their reception into the kingdom of 
Christ as pure grace. Calvin: Ostendit qualiter nos omnes amplexus 
sit Christus, ubi nihil discriminis reliquit inter Judzos et Gentes. 
Utrosque ex misera dissipatione collegit, collectos in regnum patris 
adduxit, ut fierent unus grex in uno ovili sub uno pastore. In 
place of δέ, the best codices read γάρ, and, doubtless, γώς would 
afford a more convenient connection. We must suspect, however, 


* Since during and after evil, love leads to Christ. 
{ He shows that he does not ask them to have a vague agreement, but de- 
mands a pious record. 


426 CHAPTER Xv. v. 9—I15. 


that on that very_account, it has been used in the room of δέ, which 
here forms a logical antithesis. ὃ 

V.9. The infinitive δοξάσαν depends upon λέγω δέ. Ambrose: 
Quia his nulla promissio erat, quasi indigni per solam misericor- 
diam assumpti sunt. The structure of this clause is not sufficiently 
parallel to the foregoing. Paul describes the pardoning of the Gen- 
tiles in the words of the Old Testament, which declare the share they 
were one day to have in Israel’s salvation. The first passage is from 
Ps. xviii. 49. 

V.10. The indefinite λέγευ is the Rabbinical formula of quotation. 
The Rabbins supply wapn mn or adn. ‘The passage is from Deut. 
ΧΧΧΊΙ. 43. 

V.11. The passage is from Ps. exvii. 1. 

V.12. The passage is fromIs. xi. 10. 

V.13. The conclusion of what Paul has to say to the church re- 
specting their own circumstances. The denomination of God, as 
the God of hope, connects itself with the ἐλπιοῦσιν which has just 
gone before. Where faith is to be found, and, along with faith, 
spiritual joy and spiritual peace, there, too, must the hope of a future 
salvation be lively; nor can this fail, inasmuch as the spirit of God 
is the quickening element of believers. ‘Theophylact: Καὶ πεοξενεῦ 
yae ἡμῖν τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ πνεύματος ἡ ἐλπὶς», καὺ πάλιν ὑπὸ Tov ἁγίον 
σίνεύματος ἐν ἡμιν χραταιοτέξα γίνεται. 

V.14. As Paul was neither the founder, nor appointed pastor of 
the church at Rome, in the tenderness of his feelings he wishes to 
remove even the shadow of suspicion that, in addressing them, 
though being strangers to him, he had acted presumptuously. ‘The 
αὐτὸς ἐγώ Stands opposed to an objection which might have been 
made by the Romans, viz. that he did not believe they possessed the 
qualities he required, which yet existed among them. ᾿Αγαθωσύνῃ 
_may denote, more specifically, an affectionate brotherly disposition, 
(Theophylact: τὸ φιλάδελφον.) as Eph. v. 9, or, in the larger sense, 
the admirable disposition and frame of mind of the gospel, 2 Thess. i. 
11. Chrysostom correctly explains γνῶσυς to mean the proper pru- 
dence for behaving towards brethren. 

V.15. The corunedzzeor is referred by Calvin, Bengel and others, 
to the act of writing, which, as there was no close intimacy betwixt 
the Romans and the Apostle, was bold. The majority of expositors, 
however, refer it to the language, Paul having not only in ch. xiv., 
but ix. xi., expressed himself very strongly. Erasmus translates it, 
paulo familiarius. In this case, we might compare Plato’s Gorg. ed. 
Heind. 134: εἴ τὸ xai dyeovxoregov εἰρῆσθαι. But as, in the sequel, 

he refers solely to his vocation to preach among the Gentiles, the 
former exposition is better adapted to the connection. Whatever 
meaning we give to τολμηξότεξον, ἀπὸ wégovs must be a limitation of 


* For hope procures for us the power of the Spirit, and is itself again 
strengthened within us by the Holy Ghost. 


CHAPTER xv. v. 15—19. 427 


it. Cicumenius: ἀπὸ μέρους ἀντὶ τοῦ τεόπον τινὰ, καὶ εἴ τις μὴ τὴν 
διάνοιαν ὅλην βλέπευ; ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰς τὰς λέξεις ἐκ μέρους πολυπραγμονεῖ γυμ- 
νώσας τὰς διανοίας. In the ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων, to be resolved into εἰς 
τὸ ἐπαναμιμνήσκειν, lies the true purport of Paul’s letter. He did not 
take upon himself to set up to instruct the ignorant, he but wished 
to recall what is apt to escape from the memory. In forming the 
resolution to attempt such a new awakening of the Romans, he was 
moved by his vocation as Apostle of the Gentiles. Ccumenius: 
Δεύκνυσι ὅτι οὐδὲ ἀναμνῆσαυ ἂν ἐτόλμησεν, εἰ μὴ τὼ ἔϑνη ἐπεπίστευτο. 

V.16. Description of the exalted duties which the apostolical 
office brings along with it. Paul makes use of an image common 
among the early Christians, and which represented the whole church 
of believers as an oblation made to God. In the same way, 6. xii. 
1, he had exhorted the Christians to present themselves as a sacrifice 
to God, and at Phil. ii. 17, calls the faith of the church the priestly 
sacrifice. Led by this image, the Apostle also employs the an- 
swerable expression λευτουξγός, Whose cognate forms in the LXX. 
are all employed to denote sacerdotal functions. In the same man- 
ner, too, does fsezeyscyv in Josephus, Philo and profane authors, 
signify directly ‘* to sacrifice, do the work of a priest.”? . Here it 
means, “to discharge in a sacerdotal way.’? Similar is the ex- 
pression τὸν νόμον iegoveyecv, 4 Mac. vii. 8. While the Jewish 
priests clean the altar, kindle the fire, slay the victim, and then pre- 
sent it to God, the sole priestly office of the Apostle consists in pro- 
claiming the Gospel, and the Gentiles are the oblation which follows. 
᾿Αγιάξω, like wap, is equivalent to προσφέρειν. ‘The ἐν πνεύματι 
ἁγίῳ contrasts this offering as spiritual, with that which is external. 

V. 17. The thought that, as Apostle of the Gentiles, and priest of 
Christ, he had addressed the Roman church, now leads him to speak 
of what God had enabled him to accomplish in this holy office. 
Καύχησις, as at Rom. iii. 37, materia gloriandi. The ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 
denotes that the Apostle only boasts under the consciousness of the 
aids of Christ’s grace. Ta neds τὸν Θεόν, Supply here xara. The 
glory consists in divine, and not terrestrial things. 

V. 18. Calvin: Tantam mihi glorize materiam ipsa veritas suppe- 
ditat, ut non sit mihi opus accersere falsa et aliena encomia, veris 
sum contentus. Eis ὑπαχοὴν ἐδνῶν. Compare the obs. on 6. i. 5. 
See further, 1 Pet. i. 2, 22. 

V.19. Σημεῖα xa’ τέξατα, if combined, are as little different as 
ona) mn. Philo too uses them as equivalent. Old interpreters, 
however, make a distinction. Σημεῖον; they say, is ἃ phenomenon 


* In part, in place of in some sort. Andalthough one may not perceive the 
full meaning, still he may partly expiscate the sense of the words, by investi- 
gating the train of thought. : 

Τ He shows that he would not have presumed to stir up their memories, 
had he not been set over the Gentiles. 


428 CHAPTER Xv. v. 19 —24. 


of an unusual kind, but still conformable to nature, as when Christ 
instantaneously cures Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever. On the other 
hand, zéeas is a phenomenon not according to nature, such, for in- 
stance, as the cure of the person born blind. ‘The ἐν δυνάμει πνεὺμα- 
τος Θεοῦ, is, by Theodoret, Chrysostom, Erasmus and many others, 
regarded as subordinate to the preceding ἐν δυνάμει" they suppose 
that Paul means to specify the basis of his miraculous power. ‘To 
that ἐν δυνάμευς it appears, however, more suitable to co-ordinate it, 
as Beza, Justin, Grotius and others do. Not only was a superior 
influence manifested in the outward miracles, but this was even more 
the case, in the discoveries of spiritual power. Πληξόω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον» 
to fulfil, 7. 6. fully preach, the gospel, Col. i. 25. See upon the ex- 
pression, Fritzsche, Dissert. du, etc. p. 134. The χύκλῳ may well 
refer to Paul’s residence in Arabia, of which he speaks at Gal. i. 17. 
Of his preaching the gospel in Illyria, the Acts of the Apostles is 
silent, as it also says nothing of his founding the church in Crete. 

V. 20. It was, doubtless, one and the same doctrine which the 
first teachers of Christianity all taught; they did so, however, in 
various ways. Accordingly, when in any church, different teachers 
modelled their labours according to different types, the weak disciple 
might be led astray by the variety of the forms, and seduced to place 
too much weight upon some one or other of them, which we find 
was the case in the Corinthian church. 

V. 21. The passage is from Isa. lii. 15. 

V. 22. In consequence of there being still so many Gentile na- 
tions in the countries more adjacent to him, the Apostle could not as 
yet gratify the fond wish of visiting the church at Rome he enter- 
tained, and which he had also expressed, c. i. v. 10. 

V. 23. It had been Paul’s desire to labour in those localities where 
no one else had preceded him. By this time, however, he had 
planted the gospel in the principal cities of Greece, in Ephesus, 
Corinth, Thessalonica, and Philippi, from which it was rapidly 
propagated to the smaller towns. In this way the Apostle could 
affirm that he had no longer any field for his activity in the East. 

V. 24. Whether the Apostle ever actually was in Spain, the fur- 
thest region of the West, and there preached the gospel, as the tra- 
dition of the church, although on no very certain grounds, asserts, 
depends upon whether we suppose him to have suffered a second 
imprisonment. In that case,—and certainly more grounds speak iz 
favour of a second imprisonment, than speak against it,—we may 
well suppose also a journey into Spain. (Compare Chr. Schmid, 
Historia Antiqua Canonis, V. et N. T. p. 597.) On the departure 
of Christian teachers from any city, they were wont to be convoyed 
by several of the brethren, Acts xv. 3; xvii. 14, 15; xx. 38; xxi. 5. 

Paul qualifies the ἐμπλησθῶ, with an ἀπὸ μέρους, inasmuch as the 
impulse of his vocation did not permit his heart to taste full satisfaec- 
tion in enjoyment. Chrysostom: οὐδείς με χεόνος ἐμπλῆσαι δύναται» 


CHAPTER XV. V. 24-—33. 429 


οὐδὲ ἐμποιῆσαί μου xogov τῆς ὁμιλίας ὑμῶν. With respect to the read- 
ing, we have to observe, that both ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς and yae after 
ἐλπίζω are awanting in the codices AC DE FG, in the Syriac, 
Arabic, Koptic, &c., and are unquestionably spurious. 

V. 25. This is Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem. He was there 
and then seized, and brought a prisoner to Rome. 

V. 26. Macedonia and Achaia were the two provinces into which 
the Romans divided the whole of Greece. 

V. 27. Spiritual salvation came from the Jews. Compare also 1 
Cor. ix. 11. 

V. 28. SoeayiSecda. means - properly to seal, and then ¢o deliver 
safely; in Latin, pecuniam consignare. Kagzdg is the amount of the 
collection. 

V. 29. Codices A C Ὁ E F G, the Coptic, Athiopic and others, 
omit the τοῦ εὐαγγελίου «ov, which is accordingly to be considered as 
a gloss. The sense remains the same. Αἱ ὁ. i. 11, the Apostle 
said, he hoped to give his brethren a χάξισμω πνευματικόν, on which, 
see the observations we have made. 

V. 30. The Apostle foresaw what severe tribulation awaited him 
in Jerusalem; and as he himself was at all times diligent in interces- 
sion for others, he hence encourages the brethren to intercede for 
him. Aw τῆς ἀγάπης τοὺ πνεύματος. Christian affection is dis- 
tinguished from worldly love and attachment; it is the offspring of 
that spirit which dwells in the hearts of the regenerate. Συναγωνί- 
σασθαι. ‘The life of the Apostle was a continual war, and of the 
weapons which he used in carrying it on, the chief was prayer. Am- 
brose: Si et ipsi cupidi sint videndi Apostolum, impensius orent ut 
inde liberetur. 

V. 31. Paul himself knew beforehand the rage of his countrymen, 
and prior to his arrival in Jerusalem it was foretold him by prophets, 
Acts xxi. 11. At the same time, he also wished to conciliate the 
Christian brethren of Jewish extraction, as these, on account of their 
strict observance of the ceremonial law, (Acts xxi. 10.) did not as yet 
regard him with unrestrained affection. Or it may perhaps have 
been his wish, that the gifts, coming as they did from Gentile Chris- 
tians, should be affectionately received by the Jews, and excite to 
mutual attachment. 

V. 32. Aca is here intimation of the circumstances in which, or 
under which, any thing happens; in sense equivalent to κατά, 2 Cor. 
Vili. 3. 

V. 33. ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης iS a predicate the Apostle loves to use in 
benedictions. See c. xvi. 20. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. iv. 9. 1 
Thess. v. 23. 


* For no length of time is able to satiate, or inspire me with a distaste for 
your society. 


CHAPTER SIXTEENTH. 


ARGUMENT. 
Salutations and pious wishes. 


V. 1. Cenchrea is the harbour of Corinth towards Asia Minor. 
The deaconesses, in the churches, had the same services to perform as 
the deacons, excepting only that they chiefly devoted themselves to 
their own sex. ‘Through their means Christianity, in its early days, 
was introduced, in an unsuspected way, into the bosom of Gentile 
families. 

V. 2. The ἐν Κυρίῳ indicates how, on the appearance of the Chris- 
tian sisters, that sort of brotherly sentiment which is founded on the 
Lord, should be inspired. ‘The Apostle likewise explains it by ἀξίως 
τῶν ἁγίων. ἸΙροστάτιυς, properly female superintendent, then pa- 
troness, curatrix. 

V. 3. At 2 Tim. iv. 19, we find Prisca in place of the diminutive 
Priscilla. Prisca and Aquila, of Jewish extraction, had, by the edict 
of the Emperor Claudius for the banishment of the Jews, been driven 
from Rome. Whether so early as at that period, they had embraced 
Christianity, or were converted afterwards, cannot certainly be said. 
At Corinth Paul lodged in their house, as Aquila, like himself, ear- 
ried on the trade of tent-making. When the Apostle quitted Corinth, 
Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him, but on his proceeding farther 
towards Jerusalem, they remained at Ephesus, and exerted them- 
selves for the kingdom of God. (Acts xviii. xix.) In 1 Cot. xvi. 19, 
we find salutations sent by them; and in the 2 Epistle to Tim., writ- 
ten several years after, iv. 19, greetings fo them, which shows that 
they had remained for some considerable time in Ephesus. Ata 
subsequent date, (under Nero), they had, as would appear from the 
greeting before us, returned to Rome. 

V. 4. On what occasion these persons risked their lives for the 
Apostle, we do not know. It may have been in the uproar raised by 
the goldsmith Demetrius at Ephesus. The éxxanoia κατ᾽ οἶκον is the 
family and all the domestics, each household in the great church ἢ 
forming a diminutive one. Comp. vi. 14 and 15, the οἱ σὺν αὐτῶ 
ἀδελφοί. ; 

V. 5. The external authorities speak for the reading ᾿Ασίας instead 
of ᾿Αχαίας. The internal authorities in favour of it also predominate. 


CHAPTER XVI. v. 7—19. 431 


᾿Ασία would here signify Asia proconsularis, whose capital was 
Ephesus. It was easy for a copyist, overlooking its special import, 
and considering "Asia to be the name of that entire quarter of the 
globe, to put the more confined country in its place. If Αχαίΐα were 
the correct reading, there wouid be here a contradiction of 1 Cor. xvi. 
15, although in that case, we would not require to take amaeyy quite 
so strictly, but might translate it, one of the first. Eis Xevordv. 
Here εἰς» as it also does in profane authors, signifies touching, in 
reference to. ‘Che names, from Epenetus to Olympus, in v. 15, are 
wholly unknown. 

V. 7. Συγγενής may signify a bodily relative, it may also, how- 
ever, merely intimate the Jewish origin of these two persons, which 
is the more probable opinion. See ver. 11 and 21: Compare Rom. 
ix. 3. When Junius and Andronicus were imprisoned with Paul is 
unknown. The name ἀπόστολος is here to be taken in its larger 
sense, 2 Cor. vili. 23. Acts xiv. 4, 14, where Barnabas is also 
called an Apostle. 

V.13. The xai ἐμοὺ is put es Paul from gratitude for the affection 
she had shown him. 

V.16. The kiss, as the natural τ - of fraternal and sisterly 
affection, was, in the infancy of the church, the common sign of salu- 
tation. Chrysostom calls this kiss of Christian brotherhood, a cin- 
der, which kindles love of a stronger kind than prevails betwixt rela- 
tions—the one flowing from grace, the other from nature. As, in 
the kiss, the bodies are brought together, it is a symbol of union 
betwixt the souls. (Hom. xx. in 2 Cor.) ‘This token of love was 
particularly usual at the administration of the Supper. After 2 Bex ay 
oat, we Should, were we to yield to external authorities, adopt πᾶσαν 
into the text. It must not, however, be pressed. The Apostle re- 
ports the salutation of those churches only through which he had 
passed, and of which he had learned that they took an interest in 
the welfare of the Christians of the metropolis. 

V.17. In conclusion, Paul adds a warning against those danger- 
ous men who, in all the Christian churches, endeavoured, at that 
period, to sow the seeds of discord, those, to wit, who wanted to 
force the ceremonial law upon the Gentiles. By the picture which 
Paul is wont.to draw of them, the only motive that actuated them, 
was the desire of ingratiating themselves with the more strict among 
the Jewish converts, of whom they hoped to make a gain. ‘To the 
same improper motives did our Saviour ascribe the zeal of the Phari- 
sees. 

V.18. Paul applies the same language to these persons at Phil. 
ili. 18, 19. 

V.19. As the church had acquired so noble a reputation for tract- 
ableness, (such is here the meaning of ὑπαχοή, see Philem. v. 21,) 
the Apostle wishes that, in compliance with Christ’s precept, they 
should join the wisdom of the serpent to the simplicity of the dove. 


432 CHAPTER XVI. Vv. 20, 23, 24. 


CEcumenius: Φξονήσεν μὲν κεχρῆσθαν εἰς 7d μὴ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἀδικεῖσθαι, 
ἀκχεξαιότητι δὲ εἰς τὸ μὴ ἑτέξους ἐπιβουλεύειν. ἢ 

V.20. Σατανᾶς, as the author of the hateful dispositions of those 
false‘ brethren, the Judaizers. It is likewise in reference to their 
wicked endeavours to stir up discord, that God is here called Θεὸς 
εἰρήνης. Συντείβειν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας, 15 constructio pregnans, and a 
biblical expression for total discomfiture. Not improbably, it is an 
allusion to Gen. ili. 15. 

V. 23. The congregation had their meetings in the house of Caius. 
According to a tradition of Origen’s, this Caius afterwards became 
Bishop of Thessalonica. Οἰχονόμος is the Steward of the city trea- 
sury, equivalent to Questor. ‘The same use of the word is to be 
found in Joseph. Archeol. |. xi. c. 6, § 12; 1. vill. c. 6, v. 4. 

V.24. Ἢ ydeus τοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ παντων ὑμῶν. Chrysostom: Kat 
οὕτω χαταπαύεν τὸν λόγον πξοσεικῶς εἰς εὐχὴν" ἡ χάφξις TOV χυξίον ἡμῶν- 
ταύτην yae θεμέλιον, ταύτην Gov ἀεὶ ποιεῖν αὐτῷ φίλον. 


* To use wisdom, in order not to be made the objects of injustice by 
others, and simplicity, in order, on your part, not to circumvent them. 

+ And thus he concludes the discourse becomingly with prayer; the grace 
of our Lord. For he ever delights to make this the commencement, and this 
the conclusion. 


FINIS. 


il 


ui i 


